:: PAGE NO. 1 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER
S.Cs AND STs(POA) ACT CUM VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS
JUDGE : SECUNDERABAD
Present: M. JOHNSON, Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
S.C.436 of 2016
(in PRC No.50 of 2013 on the file of learned XXII ACMM, FAC. X ACMM, Secunderabad)
Committed by :Sri K. Sudarshan, learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, FAC X ACMM, Secunderabad.
PRC No. :50 of 2013
Crime No.& Police Station : Cr.No.137 of 2011 P.S. Lallaguda, Secunderabad.
Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Lallaguda, Secunderabad
Name and Description of the accused No.1 to 8:A1. Mekala Sudhakar Reddy @ Uppal Sudhakar Reddy, s/o. M. Papi Reddy, aged 56 years, occ: Business, r/o. H.No.9-162, Uppal Kalan, Uppal, R.R. district.
:: PAGE NO. 2 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
A2. Mekala Ramakrishna Reddy @ Raju, s/o. Mekala Sudhakar Reddy @ Uppal Sudhakar Reddy, aged 33 years, occ: Business, r/o.H.No.5-20, Indlaguda (V), Saroor Nagar(M), R.R. district.
A3. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy @ Sekhar Reddy, s/o. M. Papi Reddy, aged 36 years, occ: Business, r/o.H.No.9-161, Sriram Colony, Uppal, R.R. district.
A4. Mekala Dayakar Reddy @ Dayam, s/o. M. Rami Reddy, aged 27 years occ:Business, r/o.H.No.4-312, Balapur (V), Saroor Nagar(M), R.R. district.
A5. Musti Prabhakar @ Raju, s/o. M. Hanumanthu, aged 35 years, occ: Supervisor in Construction Company, r/o.H.No.9-152, Sriram Colony, Uppal, R.R. district.
A6. Gundala Neepal Reddy, s/o. Vijaya Reddy, aged 33 years, occ: Business, r/o. H.No.2-10-159, Sriram Colony, Uppal, R.R. district.
:: PAGE NO. 3 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
A7. Veligireddy Neeraj Nayan @ Neeraj Reddy, s/o. Late V. Satyanarayana Reddy, aged 35 years, occ: Business, r/o. H.No.MIG-7, HUDA employees Colony, Saroor Nagar, R.R. district.
A8. D. Jeetender Reddy @ Jittu, s/o.D. Raji Reddy, aged 20 years, occ: Student, r/o.H.No.9-131, Bharathnagar Colony, Uppal, R.R. district.
(Since A3, A6 and A7 died, the case against A3, A6 and A7 is
ABATED)
Prosecution conducted by : Sri R. Upender, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by : Sri V. Surender Rao, Counsel for accused No.1 to 8
Offences under Secs. :147, 148, 307, 120-B, r/w.149 of IPC.
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court : Held not guilty
Result:-
A1, A2, A4, A5 and A8 found not guilty for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 \and 120(B) IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Mos. 1 to 8 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
This case is coming before me on 18.03.2024 for hearing and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Upender, learned Additional Prosecutor for the State and Sri V. Surender Rao, counsel for accused and having heard the matter and stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the follow- ing:- :: PAGE NO. 4 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
J U D G M E N T
1)The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Lallaguda filed charge sheet against
A1 to A8 in Cr.No.137 of 2011 alleging that they have committed offences under Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPC 2a)According to charge sheet, on 21.10.2011 at about 3 p.m., PW.1 Smt.
Puducheri Annandalaxmi w/o. P. Anand Mudaliar, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Household, r/o. Flat No: 204, Beside Bachpan School, Sairam Apartments, DD Colony, Am- berpet, Hyderabad lodged a report with the Station House Officer, wherein she stated that they have 4,000 sq. yards land at Ward No: 137, Block-F, situated at Bathkamınakunta, Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka, out of which the Urban Land
Ceiling Authorities have taken over about 2,800 sq. yards as surplus land and handed over the remaining land of 1200 sq. yards as retainable land. About four days back her husband obtained Injunction order in respect of above land.
In this connection on 21.10.2011 at about 5 a.m. her husband/PW.2 and son/
PW.4 went to above site in their Maruti Swift car No: AP-20F-5005 for perform- ing pooja and while so at about 6 a.m. while they were performing pooja one person by name Mekala Sudhakar Reddy @ Uppal Sudhakar Reddy Dada, his son Raju and his brother Chandrasekhar Reddy together with their associates attacked on his husband and son with sticks and ran away, due to which her husband and became unconscious and immediately they were shifted to
Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and wherein they were admit- :: PAGE NO. 5 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
ted in ICU ward and she requested to take necessary legal action against the above persons. On receipt of above report, LW21/PW.17 Sub Inspector of Po- lice, registered a case me Crime No: 137/2011, U/s: 307 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation.
b) During the course of investigation, PW.17 examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 3, visited Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad where he found the injured persons/ PW.2 and PW.4, who sustained severe head injuries, were undergoing treatment as inpatient and are in unconscious condition. On seeing the serious condition of both injured persons, PW.17 prepared a requisi- tion to the learned VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad for recording their Dying Declarations, but the Dr. Hari Kumar, who was treated both the injured has made remarks that since both the injured persons sus- tained severe injuries over their head and they are not in a position to depose their evidence / Dying Declarations, and hence the same was deferred. From there, PW.17 visited the scene of offence located at Vijayapuri Colony, South
Lallaguda, Secunderabad wherein found blood stains on earth, one blood- stained broken stick, as such, PW.17 secured the presence of two mediators /
LW.8 and 9/ M.Mahender and Syed Ali and conducted the scene observation- cum-seizure panchanama and seized the blood stained earth, blood-stained broken stick in their presence and drawn the rough sketch of the scene. Later on PW.17 secured the presence of eye witnesses /Pws.5 and 5 and after thor- ough examination recorded their detailed statements, in which they corrobo- :: PAGE NO. 6 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
rated with the contents of the complaint and they disclosed the names of ac- cused persons in their statements.
2c) PW.17 started making his efforts to apprehend the accused persons, A1
Mekala Sudhakar Reddy @ Uppal Sudhakar Reddy and A3 M. Chandrasekhar
Reddy, approached the court and surrendered themselves on 28.10.2011, vide
Crl. M.P. No. 2411/2011 and remanded them to judicial custody. On 30-10-2011 on receipt of credible information, PW.17 along with men rushed to Secunder- abad Railway station, where apprehended the accused A5 Musti Prabhakar @
Raju and A6 Gundala Neepal Reddy on 30.10.2011 at 5 p.m. s and brought them to the police station along with their two Motorcycles i.c., Hero Honda Su- per Splendor No: AP-29AQ-6418 and Hero Honda Passion Pro No: AP-29AG- 8546. On interrogation A5 and A6 confessed to have committed this offence along with other accused persons and then PW.17 secured the presence of two mediators/ LWs 10 and 11 Syed Yakub and Mohd Saleem and recorded their confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence and seized the above motorcycles as material evidence, as they used the said vehicle in commission of offence. In pursuance of their confession, A5 and A6 lead the mediators and police team to Saroornagar, where the PW.17 apprehended the accused A7: V.
Neeraj Reddy on 30.10.2011 at 8.15 p.m. and interrogated him thoroughly, wherein he confessed his guilty of involving himself in the panchanama of A7 and seized his Honda Aviator Motorcycle No: AP-29BK-9433, Orange colour from his possession in presence of two mediators/ LWs. 10 and 11, since the said vehicle was used by A7 in commission of offence. After completing the :: PAGE NO. 7 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
seizure formalities, PW.17 brought the accused persons A5 to A7 to police sta- tion at 10.15 p.m. and after completing legal formalities effected their arrest by issuing arrest memos and A5 to A7 were produced before the court and they were remanded to custody on 31.10.2011.
2d) Since A1 and A3 surrendered before the court and were remanded to judicial custody, and as they are the crucial persons who attacked the vic- tims, and for the purpose of recording their confessions and recovery of the weapons used in the commission of offence, PW.17 filed requisition before the court for grant of police custody of accused A1 and A3 and accordingly the learned court granted police custody of A1 and A3 for three days i.e. from 1.11.2011 to 3.11.2011 vide Crl. MP No. 2418/2011, dated 31-10-2011 and took Al and A3 into police custody from Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyder- abad on 1.11.2011 in the afternoon hours and brought them to PS Lalaguda.
On 2.11.2011, PW.17 secured the presence of two mediators/ LWs .12 and 13
Jude and Joseph Rajan and recorded the confession statements of A1 and A3 between 8 to 10.15 a.m. at police station, wherein they confessed to have committed this offence along with their associates A2, A4 to A8. In pursuance of their confession, PW.17 along with A1 and men together with the mediators visited Musi river near Nagole, wherein searched for the broken stick, which was used in the commission of offence and thrown away by A1 while fleeing af- ter the offence, but unable to locate the stick. From there PW.17 along with A1, men and mediators rushed to HUDA colony and recovered the Tata Indigo car
No: AP-29AL-2877 and the stick concealed under the rear seat of the car in :: PAGE NO. 8 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
presence of mediators/ LWs 12 and 13 at the instance of A1 under cover of seizure report, which were used in commission of offence. After completing the seizure formalities, PW.17 along with A1 returned to police station in the after- noon hours and PW.17 re-produced A1 and A3 before the court along with re- port.
2e)The investigation officer forwarded the material objects viz. Broken wooden stick and soil collected from the scene to FSL for comparison and report and thereafter scientific expert furnished FSL report vide file
No.SER/1462/2011 dated 8.2.2012 opining that item nos.1 and 2 are examined human blood is detected on them but their blood group could not be determined. The meical officer/ PW.14 who treated Pws.2 and 4 furnished opinion injuries sustained by them are grievous in nature. After regaininging consciousness on 6.8.2012 the investigation officer examined PW.2 and recorded his statement and seized blood stained clothes of himself and his son/PW.4 which were worned by them at the time of offence under cover of seizure report in the presence of mediators. As PW.4 was still undergoing treatment and as such LW.16 medical officer furnished opinion that he has speech disturbance and cant talk coherently and he will not able to attend the court and as such his statement was not recorded.
2f)During the course of investigation, the investigation officer forwarded seized clothes of PW.2 and PW.4 along with letter of advice to FSL for comparison and report and the scientific expert/LW.15 examined and furnished opinion as item nos.1 to 5 are examined – human blood is detected on items :: PAGE NO. 9 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
no.1 to 6 – blood group of blood stains on item nos.1 to 6 is of “A” blood grou.
A2 and A2 obtained antcipatory bail from the Hon’ble I Addl. MSJ Court,
Hyderabad vide Crl.P.No.3315 of 2011 dt.14.11.2011 and pursuant to the said order, A2 and A4 surrendered before the investigation officer on 17.11.2011 and accordingly effected arrrest of A2 and A4 by following the arrest formalities and released them on anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds and sureties. A8 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble I Addl. MSJ, Hyderabad vide
Crl.MP.No.3561 of 29011 dated 3.12.2011 and accordingly after effecting arrest
of A8, he was enlarged on bail on execution of bonds and sureties. During enquiries, it was learnt that A1 was previously involved in several cases and collected his previous histories and also obtained copies of civil cases pertainming to the parties and thereafter LW.21 was transferred and then
LW.22 investigation officer taken up further investigation.
2g)From the evidence collected it is established that PW.1 is the wife of
PW.2 and mother of PW.4 Sharath Babu and PW.3 is the wife of PW.4 and Lws.4 and 5 are police constables who shifted the injured persons to hospital and
Lws.6 and 7 are eye witnesses to the incident. A1 is involved in many criminal cases and a rowdy sheet was also opened and subsequently it was closed in the year 2008 after approaching the Hon’ble High Court and that A2 to A4 are the relatives of A1 while A5 to A8 are friends of A4.
2h)LANDDISPUTES&CIVILCASES:
:: PAGE NO. 10 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
PW.2 GPA Holder of one C.V.Raja Rao, claims that the open land.
admeasuring 1200 Sq yards or equivalent to 1000 Sq.metres, located at Ward
No: 137, Block-F, T.S. No. 27, Survey No. 202 and revised survey No. 207/3/1 and 207/3/2, situated at Bathkammakunta, Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka belongs to them, and whereas one Mirza Basheer Baig along with A1 along with A2
Mekala Rama Krishna Reddy claims ownership of the said piece of land and thus property dispute arose between two parties over the title and ownership oftheproperty.
The said Mirza Basheer Baig, approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed a writ petition against the Govt. 2) Special Officer & Competent authority Urban
Land Ceiling Hyderabad, and 3) C.V.Raja Rao (principal of PW.2), vide WP No.
14062/2010, and he claimed ownership of the disputed property and sought for a direction to the Special Officer & Competent authority Urban Land Ceiling
Hyderabad, not to disposes him from the said land. The Hon'ble High Court in its order in WP MP No. 17696/2010 in WP No.14062/2010, made observation that "there is a dispute between him and C.V.Raja Rao (principal of PW-2) with regard to the identity of the land ie, as to whether it is in Survey No. 202 or in
SurveyNo.203and204ofLalagudavillage",
The said Mirza Basheer Baig along with, A1 and A2, filed another Writ Petition
No. 21701 of 2010 praying for Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the
A.P. Lokayukta dated 27-7-2010 in complaint No. 1168/2010B1 directing the :: PAGE NO. 11 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
other respondents District Collector, Hyderabad, Special Officer & Competent authority Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, and Tahsildar, to take possession of the disptited land, and the Hon'ble High granted stay of the said proceedings
Viele order dated 31-8-2010. He has also filed another WP No. 27699/2010
before the Hon'ble High Court, with regard to the above said land dispute, and
all the above mentioned writ petitions said to be pending consideration.
PW.2 P.Anand Mudaliar and his principal Sri C.V. Raja Rao, having apprehending foul play, filed a suit for permanent injunction against A1
Mewkala Sudhakar Reddy, A2 Rama Krishna Reddy, and one Mirza Basheer
Baig, vide OS No. 669/2011 on the file of 1 Junior Civil Judge, CCC
Secunderabad and also filed an IA No. 1242/2011 in OS No. 669/2011 for grant of temporary injunction. The learned I Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Secunderabad, granted ad-interim injunction vide orders dated 18-10-2011 in favour of PW.2 and his principal C.V.Raja Rao in respect of above mentioned disputed property.
All the above facts and circumstances clearly disclose that there is a land dispute pending between PW.2 and A1.
:: PAGE NO. 12 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
2i) CASES BOOKED WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE LAND DISPUTES PRECEDING
TO THE PRESENT CASE
On 4-1-2011 PW.2 came to PS Lalaguda, and lodged a complaint stating that a1 threatened him with dire consequences and warned to leave the land, for which a case in Cr.No. 1/2011 U/s 506 IPC was registered, which was subsequently transferred to PS Amberpet and was re-registered as Cr. No.
32/2011. The case is pending trial before the court. Again on 13.10.2011 accused Sudhakar Reddy threatened PW.2 near High Court for which PW.2 lodged a complaint and case registered in Cr.No.205 of 2011 under Sec.506 IPC at PS Charminar and pending for trial before the learned court.
2k)PRESENT CASE
A1 Sudhkar Reddy had erected a sign board in the said land as it belongs to him, and also had parked his vehicles in the disputed site. After getting favourable ad interim injunction orders against the said Al and others,
PW.2 along with his son Sharath Mudaliar, left their house by their Maruthi
Swift Car No. AP20F 5005 on 21-10-2011 at 5 a.m. and have been to the disputed land, had removed the sign board, and vehicles, and started performing bhoomi pooja. The friends of injured Sharath Babu, and some others were present at the site. While PW.2 along with his son were present at the disputed site, early morning at about 5.30 am, A1 who got intimation :: PAGE NO. 13 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
about the presence of PW.2 in the disputed land, the accused had gathered the other accused A2 to A4, to his house, on the instructions of A1, A4 Mekala
Dayakar Reddy, called his friends A5 to A8 and informed them that his paternal uncle A1 Sudakar Reddy is having some problem at his open plot situated at Vijayapuri Colony, and as such A5, A6 and A8 came to the house of
A1 and joined them. Thereafter A1 to 6 and A8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, started on their vehicles i.e. Tata Indigo car No: AP-29AL-2877 and three motorcycles ie., Hero Honda Super Splendor
No: AP-29AQ-6418 Hero Honda Passion Pro No: AP-29AG-8346, Honda Aviator
No: AP-29BK-9433, arrived at the disputed plot at Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka.
On reaching the spot the accused noticed PW.2 and others performing pooja, and became aggressive, and A3 Chandrasekhar Reddy Shekar Reddy and A2
Ramakrishna Reddy Raju forcibly entered into the plot by opening the gate by dashing the gate with their motorcycles, while A1 Sudhakar Reddy got down from the car armed with stick, by abusing in filthy language and shouting as
ENDIRAA LANJAKODUKULANU and so on and A1 attacked on Sharath Mudaliar/
PW.4 with the stick, due to which Sharath Mudaliar fell down on the ground, meantime A3 Chandrasekhar Reddy @ Shekar Reddy took a stick from nearby the gate and attacked on PW.2 Anand Mudaliar over his head, with a common intention to kill PW.2 and his son, upon seeing this sudden attack the person sitting in the plot ran away from there, then A1, his brother A3 Chandrasekhar
Reddy beat Anand Mudaliar/PW.2, his son Sharath Mudaliar/ PW.4 indiscriminately with sticks, while A4 Dayakar Reddy and A2 Ramakrishna :: PAGE NO. 14 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Reddy @ Raju beat with hands and legs, due to which both the above persons sustained severe bleeding injuries over their heads and fell unconscious. In the meantime A7 Neeraj Reddy reached the spot on his two wheeler Honda Aviator
No: AP-29BK-9433, while during the incident the accused persons A5 to A7 stood besides A1. After that A3 Shekar Reddy and A8 Jitender Reddy sped away on their vehicle, A7 Neeraj Reddy and A6 Neepal Reddy ran away on his two wheeler, while A5 along with A1 Sudhakar Reddy and A4 Dayakar Reddy left from there in the said car, while A2 Ramakrishna Reddy @ Raju followed their car on his two wheeler. A4 Dayakar Reddy drove the car towards Uppal and after crossing Uppal near Metro Shopping Maal, A2 Ramakrishna Reddy @
Raju stopped their car and got inside the car and asked A5 Prabhakar to follow the car on his two-wheeler, then A5 followed their car, they stopped the car at a house near Saibaba Temple, Alkapuri, by that time the A3 Shekar
Reddy and A8 Jitender Reddy were waiting there along with their vehicle, then
A3 Shekar Reddy got into the car and asked A5 and A8 Jitender Reddy to follow the car on the above two wheelers i.e. Hero Honda Super Splendor No:
AP-29 AQ-6418 Hero Honda Passion Pro No: AP-29AG-8546, and subsequently they both followed the said car and the above incident was witnessed by Pws.5 and 6/LWs.6 and 7. On receipt of the call the Lws-4 and 5 beat constables rushed to the spot, and the witnesses PWs.1 and 3, also rushed to the spot, and got shifted the injured persons to Yashoda Hospital by 108 ambulance for treatment.
:: PAGE NO. 15 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
2l) The investigation further revealed that after traveling for sometime, A1 and his associates stopped the car near one Apartment at Balapur Cross
Roads, from there A4 Dayakar Reddy called A7 Neeraj Reddy and asked him to reach his Flat at Saroornagar and they all reached Saroornagar and after dropping A4 Dayakar Reddy in the house of A7, the remaining A1 Sudhakar
Reddy, A2 Ramakrishna Reddy @ Raju, A3 Shekar Reddy gave two wheelers i.e., Hero Honda Super Splendor No: AP-29AQ-6418, Hero Honda Passion Pro
No. AP-29AG-8546 to A5 and A6 to used them for their needs and they left from there in the said car, since then A5 Prabhakar and A6 Neelap Reddy are using the said vehicles and roaming here and there and taking shelter at Im- liban Bus stand, Gowliguda. Due to fear from police, on 30.10.2011 at about 5.00 pm A5 and A6 came over to Secunderabad Railway station on the above vehicles in order to leave Hyderabad, but meantime they were caught by Lal- laguda police along with the above two wheelers. In pursuance of their confes- sion statements, arrested A7 at his residence and seized his two wheeler since the accused persons used the above three two wheelers in commission of of- fence.
2m) CASES BOOKED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE CASE
Subsequent after the above case A1 started threatening PW.2 to withdraw the cases filed against him, and the following are the cases registered against A1 and others. On 12-12-2012 PW.2 filed a complaint with Osmania University PS :: PAGE NO. 16 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
stating that A1 threatened him to withdraw the cases filed against him, and a case in Cr.No.491/2012 U/s 506 IPC was registered, subsequently the said case was referred as Lack of Evidence. On 21-10-2012 A1 along with his henchmen have been to the house of PWs.1 and 2, and threatened them to withdraw the above case. On the complaint of PW.2 on 22-12-2012 a case vide Cr.No.
363/2012 U/s 506 IPC was registered at PS Amberpet, and it is under investiga- tion. On 12-09-2013 A1, A2, and others have criminally trespassed into to the house of PW.2, threatened with dire consequences and threatened to outrage modesty of PW.1, for which a case in Cr.No. 272/2013 U/s 341, 506, 448, 354
IPC was registered at PS Amberpet, and A1 and A2 were arrested in the said crime and the case is under investigation.
2n) FINDING OF THE INVESTIGATION:
As per the evidence on record it is well established that, on 21-10- 2011 at about 5.30 a.m., A1 to A8 have formed themselves into an unlawful as- sembly, A1 and A3 armed with sticks, and in furtherance of their common ob- ject to attack, PW.2 and his son, went to the disputed site at Sy No. 202 (old),
New Number 207, Ward No. 137, Block-F, situated at Bathkammakunta, Vijaya- puri Colony, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, and A1 and A3 attacked PW.2 and his son
Sharath Babu/ PW.2 with sticks while A2 and A4 gave fist blows and kicked them indiscriminately, with a common intention to kill them, and caused them severe bleeding injuries, and where as the accused A5 to A8 have stood with :: PAGE NO. 17 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
theaboveaccusedA1duringtheassault.
Thus A1 to A4 have committed an offence punishable under section 147, 148, 307 120(B) r/w. 149 IPC while the other accused/ A5 to A8 committed an of- fence punishable under section 147, 148 r/w 149 IPC and all the accused are li- able for punishment and on conclusion of investigation, the investigation officer filed charge sheet and he also filed supplementary charge sheet after recording the statement of PW.4 injured as he was unable to speak
due to speech problem by the time of filing previous charge sheet.
3) Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused No.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Secs.147, 148, 307, 120(B) r/w.149 IPC and registered it as PRC No.50 of 2013 on the file of the XXII Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
4)On appearance of the accused No.1 to A8, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C
before the trial court. Since the offence under section 307 IPC is exclusively
triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide orders dated 24.8.2016 by following the due procedure as contemplated under section 209
Cr.P.C. and thereafter made over the case to this court for trial. Subsequently
A7 reported died and case against him was abated on :: PAGE NO. 18 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
5)On appearance of the accused No.1 to A6 and A8, they were examined under section 228 Cr.P.C and charge under Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPCframed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6)On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 20 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 apart from Mos.1 to 9 were marked. Subsequently A3 and A7 died and case was abated against them. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1, A2, A4, A5 and A8 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They denied incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution. They reported no defence but Exs.D1 to D12 on behalf of the accused.
7)Heard both sides with reference to the evidence on record and oral and written submissions by the Addl. Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the accused.
8)Now the point for consideration is whether prosecution established guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
9) In view of the specific charge against the accused persons herein under
Sec.147, 148, 307, 120(B) r/w.149 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that there was unlawful assembly with a common object, they acted as :: PAGE NO. 19 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
against the prosecution witnesses to commit the offence under Sec.307 IPC and there must be a criminal conspiracy contemplated under Sec.120(B) IPC.
To get attract the charge under Sec.120(B) IPC, it is for the prosecution to prove that the punishment is more than severe if the criminal conspiracy is committed in prosecution of common object and the charge against the accused that they formed into unlawful assembly with a common object is to be established beyond doubt in terms of Sec.120(B) IPC and under Sec.149 IPC.
In the absence of the charge of the conspiracy, whether the prosecution is able to prove unlawful assembly and committed the offence with a common object is to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. For the liability under Sec.149
IPC, the vicarious liability of any person who is a member of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object if an offence is committed anyone being a member of the unlawful assembly, all the members are held liable for the offence committed. The basic ingredients of Sec .149 IPC are i)that the accused should be a member of unlawful assembly, ii)That the prosecution of the common object of that assembly, the offence is committed by the member of unlawful assembly or iii)That the offence was such a nature that the member of that assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object. Therefore, it is clear that when the above ingredients/ elements are satisfied, then only the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Therefore, whether this is a case of criminal conspiracy under
Sec.120(B) IPC and unlawful assembly constitute under Sec.147 or 148 IPC and thereby with a common object, they have committed the offence is a matter of :: PAGE NO. 20 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
evidence to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the offence under Sec.307 IPC is concerned, that in case of the attempt to murder by the dangerous or deadly weapon is amounting to attempt to commit murder is bound be the only act to be done by culprit. Even if this act is complete attempt to murder under Sec.307 IPC. Where 4 or 5 persons attack a man with a deadly weapon, it may well presume with intention is to cause death, where some injuries were simple in nature and though deadly weapons were seized and some of the injuries though deadly in nature and endangering the life would not deemed to be a injury would not necessarily cause death, but for timely medical aid and the offence is not under Sec.307 IPC but may fall under other sections like Sec.327 Cr.P.C. Therefore, from the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses whether the essential ingredients of those offences proved or not is to be appreciated from the evidence adduced by prosecution and also the defence set up by the accused herein.
10) The specific charge framed against A1 to 7 is that all accused conspired together and formed into unlawful assembly and trespassed into the land of
PW.2 admeasuring 1000 sq.meters at Vijaypuri colony, Bathukamma Kunta in old survey No.202 corresponding to new survey no.207 of PW.2 on 21.10.2011 early morning hours and attacked PW.2 and PW.4 with sticks and hands and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill them while they were performing pooja in the land and accused are liable for the charges under
Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPC.
:: PAGE NO. 21 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE:
Prosecution has to establish the following Ingredients of offences for which accused herein charge with:-
Section 147 IPC is the penal provision for the offence of
Rioting under Sec.146 IPC defined as hereunder:
“Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any mem- ber thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting”.
Essential ingredients of the offence of rioting are:
1. The accused persons must be five or more in number and form an unlaw- ful assembly;
2. The accused must be animated by a common object; and
3. The force or violence must be used by the unlawful assembly or any member thereof in the prosecution of the common object.
Section 148 IPC defines as hereunder:
“Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with any- thing which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be pun- ished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.
Essential Ingredient:
1. It is an offence of rioting.
2. The accused joins the rioting
3. He is armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death
Sec.149 IPC deals with the offence committed by o the members of unlawful assembly.It states that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in :: PAGE NO. 22 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Whereas Section 141 IPC defines Unlawful Assembly and the essential elements are
1. Existence of an unlawful assembly.
2. Commission of an offence by any member of the unlawful o assembly.
3. The offence committed must be in furtherance of the assembly’s o common objective.
Sec.307 IPC is Attempt to murder which defines as hereunder:
“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned”.
Section 120B IPC is penal provision off criminal conspiracy defined as hereunder:
“(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same mannerasifhehadabettedsuchoffence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both”.
11) PW.1 is the complainant and wife of PW.2 and PW.2 is the victim and husband of PW.1, PW.3 is the circumstantial witness and daughter-in-law of
PWs.1 and 2 and wife of PW.4 and whereas PW.4 is the victim. PW.5 to 8 are the eye witnesses to the incident and PW.9 is the mediator for scene of offence panchanama, PWs.10 and 15 are the mediators for extra judicial confession of :: PAGE NO. 23 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
A5 to 7, PWs.11 and 16 are the medical officers who treated PW.2 and PW.4 and issued medical certificates, PWs.12 and 13 are the mediators for extra judicial confession of A1 and A3, PWs.17, 18 and 20 are the investigation officers and whereas PW.19 is the Scientific expert.
12a) To prove the charge against the accused herein, the complainant is examined as PW.1 Smt.P.Ananda Lakshmi and she has deposed in her evidence in chief examination that that LW2-Anand Mudaliar is her husband, Jeevana
Sandhya is her daughter in law and wife of her son Sarath Mudaliar/LW3 and in the year 2011, she along with her husband and children residing in DD Colony,
Amberpet in Sai Ram Apartments and her husband/ LW2 is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring of 4500 sq. yards situated at Vijaypuri colony,
Bathukamma Kunta in old survey No.202 which is the corresponding new survey no.207 and out of the land admeasuring 4500 sq. yards under urban land ceiling an extent of 2720 Sq. meters has gone under surplus land and there remains having the land admeasuring 1000 Sq. meters. She further deposed that her husband/ LW2 filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court at
Secunderabad and obtained injunction order in his favour against one Mekala
Sudhakar Reddy and others, as they tried to grab the land of her husband and after obtaining, the injunction order on 21.10.2011 at about 4.30 A.M., her husband Anand Mudaliar and her son Sarath Mudaliar went to the land in their car to perform pooja at the Tarnaka land and that one Sandra Venkateshwarlu, one Bikshum and one Venkata Narayana also went to the land along with one :: PAGE NO. 24 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Zaheeruddhin Osman and Naga Raju to that land. She further deposed that after one hour, at about 5.00 or 5.30 A.M., she received a phone call from a person introducing himself as a friend of her son and informed that at their land situated at Tarnaka, one Mekala Sudhakar Reddy/A1 and his associates beat her husband and son indiscriminately and he further informed that they died and they were shifted to Yashoda hospital, Secunderabad.
12b) PW.1 further deposed that on receipt of such mobile call and information, she along with her daughter-in-law Jeevana Sandhya proceeded to
Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad and found that her husband and son both are in unconscious state and admitted in ICU and undergoing treatment and when she had seen her husband Ananda Mudaliar and Sharath, she noticed severe injuries over the face, head, jaw and teeth over her husband and her son was also found sustained severe bleeding injuries over his head and both of them are undergoing treatment in Yashodha hospital and then she approached the police Lallaguda P.S. and gave a written report under Ex.P1 at about 3.00 P.M.
to take necessary action against Meekala Sudhakara Reddy and others. She further deposed that her husband Ananda Mudaliar undergone treatment and also underwent surgery to the injury caused to the jaw and he was hospitalized for about 15 days and her son Sarath also undergone treatment as inpatient for about 28 days in ICU and after discharge from the hospital, her son has undergone further treatment in the same hospital for about more than one year.
:: PAGE NO. 25 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
12c)PW.1 was cross examined by the accused and it is elicited from her that she does not know the details of the litigation and the civil cases filed subsequently in the year 2009 and she is not a party to the civil cases and her husband/ PW.2 purchased the said property from one C.V.Raja Rao through sale cum GPA in the year 2009 and the said CV Raja Rao has become the owner of the property by virtue of will deed executed by the father who has purchased the land but she does not know that CV Rao and his brother C.V.Krishna Rao claimed the propert4y as legal heirs of their father viz. SMS Vijayan and she does not know the survey number of the land in which her husband undertakes agriculture at Balligudem village of Khammam district. It is also further elicited from PW.1 that the present land in dispute situated at Balligudem was purchased by her husband through GPA by paying consideration out of sale consideration of the plot sold at Khammam. When a specific question asked to the witness/ PW.1 whether she filed any Writ Petition before the court in respect of the land at Balligudem and she denied it but when the learned defence counsel pointed out the Certified copy of the affidavit filed in WP.No.15938 of 2002 and the witness admitted her signature on the affidavit in support of the
Writ Petition and the same is marked as Ex.D1. Further, it is elicited from PW.1 that the distance between DD colony and the said land at Balligudem is about 5 KMs approximately and on 21.10.2011 the Purohit has fixed the date for the purpose of Bhoomi Pooja but Purohit was not taken by her husband/ PW.2 and her son/ PW.4 to the land on the date of alleged incident. In further cross examination, PW.1 stated that she received information about the incident :: PAGE NO. 26 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
through mobile phone but she do not remember the mobile number that was used by her and she cannot say from which mobile number she received such call about the incident and she stated that one of the friends of her son has given such information about the incident. So far as the statement given to the police, PW.1 stated in the cross examination for the first time the police examined her on 21.10.2011 at about 3 p.m. and when she was in Yashoda
Hospital. She also further stated that her husband/ PW.2 was in the hospital for about 15 days and whereas her son/ PW.4was in ICU for about 28 days and thereafter he was shifted to ICU.
12d)The learned counsel also pointed out various litigations and previous disputes and the criminal cases filed against the accused persons, she replied that she do not remember whether she gave evidence in a case in CC.No.74 of 2014 on the file of XXIV Special Metropolitan Magistrate Court and however on confrontation certified copy of deposition, she admitted that she gave evidence in that case as PW.3 and the said deposition is also marked as Ex.D2. Further
PW.1 categorically stated in her cross examination admitting several facts that “I do not know the details of the litigation and the Civil Cases filing subsequent to the year 2009, and I am not party in the Civil Cases. My husband has pur- chased the said property from C.V. Raja Rao through sale cum GPA in the year 2009. the said C.V. Raja Rao has became the owner of the property by virtue of
WILL DEED executed by his father, who has purchased that land. I do not know that C.V. Raja Rao and his brother C.V. Kishan Rao claimed the property :: PAGE NO. 27 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
as Legal Heirs of their father namely SMS Vijayan. The land at Bathukamma
Kunta was purchased by my husband through sale cum GPA by paying consid- eration out of sale consideration of the plot sold at Khammam. The distance between our residence at DD colony and Bathukamma Kunta is about four or five kilometers approximately. Since, 21.10.2011 was fixed by purohits as good muhurtham, we intended to perform bhoomi pooja on the day. It is true nor- mally bhoomi pooja will be performed by digging the land, and perform pooja with photograph of God or Goddess and by following other rituals and also by breaking coconuts. First my husband and son went to the land on the day, and infact we also intended to go there. No purohit was taken by my husband and son to perform the pooja on the day. We also not called any purohits to our house on the day to take him along with us”. It is further elicited from him that “I received information about the incident on my mobile phone, but I do not re- member my mobile number and I cannot say from which mobile number I re- ceived such call on the date of the incident. When I went to Yashoda hospital on the day, one SI of police and one or two constables were there at the hospi- tal. I do not know whether that SI of police enquired with anybody else at the hospital. For the first time police examined me on 21.10.2011 at about 3.00
P.M. I was in the hospital on 21.10.2011 throughout even during night time.
Ex.P1 report is in the handwriting of my daughter in law/ PW3. My husband was in the hospital for about 15 days and whereas my son was in ICU for about 28 days, and my son was shifted to a room and he was in hospital for about seven days after shifting from ICU”. It is also elicited from the witness/ PW.1 :: PAGE NO. 28 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
that “I do not remember whether I gave evidence as PW3 in a case in CC No.74 of 2014 on the file of XXIV Spl.M.M. Court at Hyderabad. The said deposition of
PW3/P. Ananda Lakshmi,w/o.P. Ananda Mudaliar is now marked as Ex.D2. It is true in my report under Ex.P1 and in the statement given to the police, I did not state the names of Sandra Venkateshwarlu, one Bikshum and one Venkata
Narayana also went to the land along with one Zaheeruddhin Osman and Naga
Raju that they also went to the place of incident. It is true in Ex.D1 affidavit filed by me, the name of my husband is mentioned as Dayanand. It is true in that affidavit under Ex.D1 my address is mentioned as Jublieepura, Khammam
Town. It is true the Suit filed by my husband on the file of CCC, Secunderabad vide OS No.669 of 2011, was dismissed as not pressed by my husband. It is not true to suggest that the Suit in O.S. No.93 of 2013 claiming the recovery of possession of land filed by my husband as GPA of his Principal, was dismissed for default by the court. I do not know about the proceedings in LGC No.266 of 1995 was dismissed”.
13a) To substantiate the contention of prosecution and also the contents of the report lodged by PW.1, her husband is examined as PW.2 P.Anand Mudaliar and he has deposed that PW.1 is his wife and that as on 2011, he was residing along with his wife and children at DD colony, Amberpet and he is having land in Survey No.202 (old) and corresponding survey No.207 situated at
Bathukamma Kunta Tarnaka to an extent of 4500 Sq. yards and out of that land, an extent of 2700 and odd Sq. meters undergone surplus land in Urban :: PAGE NO. 29 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Land Ceiling and he remained having land to an extent of 1000 Sq. meters. He further deposed that in order to perform Bhoomi Pooja on 21.10.2011, he along with his son Sarath went to the land at early hours 4.30 A.M. in their
Swift Car and after they reaching the land at about 5.00 A.M., there was no body in the land and in the meanwhile some friends of his son namely Naga
Raju, Venkata Narayana, and two Muslim community friends also came on their two wheelers along with his friends namely Venkateshwarlu and
Bhikshamaiah on their respective two wheelers.
13b) PW.2 further deposed that after they all reached there, within 10 or 15 minutes and when they were about to start pooja, A1-M. Sudhakar Reddy, A2-
Rama Krishna Reddy, A3-Chandra Sekhar Reddy came there along with seven other persons in two cars and some motor bikes to the land and they are in possession of the sticks and they all started abusing him by uttering as
LANJAKODAKA, THIS LAND BELONGS TO US and started beating his son and when he interfered, they also beat him with sticks indiscriminately and when he tried to show the order of the Injunction passed by the court to Sudhakara
Reddy/A1, they did not listen to them and continued beating him and his son.
He further deposed that A2 Rama Krishna Reddy assaulted on his son with the stick over the head and legs due to which he sustained severe bleeding injuries over the head and left leg and both A1 and A2 beat him with the sticks on his face, head, and through out the body, due to which he sustained severe bleeding injuries over the head and his jaw was fractured and his jaw was :: PAGE NO. 30 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
moved and his tooth were broken and the friends of his son and his friends who came there were also present at the time of the incident and they all witnessed the entire incident on the day.
13c) PW.2 further deposed that after the incident, he became unconscious on the spot and he regained his consciousness after three or four days and by the time, he was in Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad in ICU and he undergone treatment for about 10 days in ICU and he was hospitalized for about more than 10 days and his son Sharath also undergone treatment in the same
Yashodha hospital for more than one month and due to severe head injury, he suffered brain hemorrhage and he also underwent surgery and even after discharge from the hospital, he undergone further treatment for time to time for about one year. He further deposed that he obtained an injunction order from the civil court as against M. Sudhakar Reddy/A1 and his son as on the date of incident of this case and he can identify the sticks used by the accused if he see them again and MO.1 is the case property produced by the police along with the letter of Station House Officer vide P.I. No.109 of 2013 of item
No.5-stick and he identified the property in P.I. No.200 of 2013 of item No.1- wooden stick under MO.2 (both P.I.No.109 of 2013 and P.I.No.200 of 2013 deposited on the file of the learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Secunderabad and produced before the court along with the forwarding letter of the Court).
:: PAGE NO. 31 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
13d) PW.2 further deposed that one month prior to this incident, he approached the police Lallaguda and gave a complaint against A1 and his son and others to take necessary action, but that case was transferred from P.S.
Lallaguda to P.S. Amberpet on the point of jurisdiction that the incident took place at his house at Amberpet and one week prior to the incident of this case, when he went to the Honourable High Court, A1 came across to him in the
High Court premises and there also he threatened him to leave the land at
Tarnaka, due to which he approached the police Charminar and gave a report to P.S. Charminar and after incident of this case, his statement was recorded by the police.
13e)PW.2 was also cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused herein and it is elicited from him that it is true that “I have given evidence in various criminal cases vide CC.Nos.344/2015, 646/2016, 188/2016, 1087/2017, 871/2018, 710/2020, 1674/2020 earlier and during the year 2010 to 2013 he was residing at Khammam and appeared in various cases filed by him including
Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court. So far as the present land at
Bathukammakunta is concerned, he stated his interest over the property that he is having agreement of sale cum GPA executed by one C.V.Raja Rao in the year 2009 but he do not remember the exact date of agreement and he did not know that the Writ Petition in respect of the land at Bathukammakunta prior to 2009 and before entering into the agreement of sale cum GPA, he made all necessary enquiries and came to know that land in Bathukammakunta is free :: PAGE NO. 32 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
from litigation and as such, he entered into sale cum GPA in the year 2009.
Further it is elicited from PW.1 admitting the fact that A1 and A2 herein also entered into agreement of sale under registered document bearing No.1694 of 2010 with the legal heirs of original owner viz. Smt.Sirajunnisa Begum who purchased the land under registered document No.1754 of 1338 Fasli and he admitted that suit in OS.no.669 of 2011 on the file of Ist Junior Civil Judge,
Secunderabad against A1 and A2 and in which he sought the relief of injunction and subsequently the said suit was dismissed as “not pressed”. Therefore, from the cross examination of PW.2, it is elicited that by filing a suit in
OS.no.669 of 2011, PW.2 has obtained an ex-parte ad interim injunction and
intended to occupy the land situated at Bathukammakunta and on this aspect, the learned counsel elicited from PW.2 several facts relating to the civil litigation pending in respect of the land in Bathukammakunta. For instance, it is elicited from PW.2 as hereunder:
“It is true I have given evidence in various criminal cases vide CC344 of 2015,
CC 646 of 2016, CC 188 of 2016, CC 1087 of 2017, CC 871 of 2018, CC. 710 of
2020, CC 1674 of 2022 earlier. It is true in some of those cases, I stated my oc- cupation as business. It is true in 2010 to 2012, I have mentioned my resi- dence as Khammam in various cases filed by me including Writ Petitions filed
before the Honourable High Court. My interest in the property that is land at
Bathukamma Kunta is that I have purchased the said land under Sale cum GPA from one CV Raja Rao in the year 2009, I do not remember the exact date. I do :: PAGE NO. 33 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
not know the litigations in respect of the land at Bathukamma Kunta prior to 2009, between my vendor, A1 and A2 herein and their vendors. Before my en- tering into sale cum GPA with one CV Raja Rao, I made all necessary enquiries and came to know that the land at Bathukamma Kuta is free from litigation and as such I entered into sale cum GPA in the year 2009”. It is further elicited that “It is true that A1 and A2 herein entered into an agreement of sale under docu- ment No.1694 of 2010 with legal heirs of the original owner namely Smt. Sira- junnisa Begum, who purchased the land under registered sale deed, bearing
Doc.No.1754 of 1338 fasli. It is true I have filed a suit in O.S. No.669 of 2011 on the file of First Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad against A1, A2 and another seeking injunction against them. It is true the said suit in O.S. No.669 of 2011 was dismissed as not pressed, vide order, dt.19.08.2013. It is true in O.S.
No.669 of 2011, I filed I.A. No.1242 of 2011 and obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction, dt.18.10.2011 and subsequently that injunction order stands va- cated by the court on the ground that it was obtained by misrepresentation of possession and modified to the order as order to maintain Status-quo until fur- ther orders. It is true A1 and A2 preferred CMA No.3 of 2012 aggrieved by the order of Status-quo, on the file of First Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the CMA was allowed and the order of status-quo was also vacated. The land at Bathukamma Kunta was surrounded by the residential houses. On 21.10.2011, the entire incident of assault took place for about half an hour be- tween 5.00 A.M. to 5.30 A.M. Firstly, A1 and A2 attacked on my son and I was at some distance at that time, and when I interfered to rescue my son/PW4, :: PAGE NO. 34 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
both A1 and A2 also assaulted on me. One Nagaraju, Venkata Narayana and two Muslim friends of my son directly came to the land on the day. Nagaraju,
Venkata Narayana and two Muslim friends of my son, have not interfered at the time of attack on me and my son. The land at Bathukamma Kunta is having a compound wall and the entire incident took place within the compound wall. I have stated the full descriptive particulars of the assailants to the police those who attacked on me and my son. It is true as on the date of incident, it was winter season, but I cannot say that it was three days prior to Amavasya. It is true in C.C.No.74 of 2014, I gave evidence as PW1 on the file of Spl. Magistrate
Court, wherein I deposed that on 21.10.2011, I along with my family members went to our land in order to do Bhoomi Pooja. It is true in a case in C.C. No.505 of 2011, I gave evidence as PW1 on 01.03.2012. I did not depose in CC No.646 of 2016 on the file of XIV ACMM, Hyderabad as PW1 that I went to the land for performing pooja along with my son and a priest. The relevant portion of the deposition confronted to the witness, but he denied it in respect of accompany- ing with the priest. I do not have any idea that the cases in CC No.188 of 2015 and CC 269 of 2015 of P.S. Charminar and P.S. Amberpet respectively were ended in acquittal in which I gave evidence.It is true I was examined by the police in Cr.No.119 of 2022 of P.S. Marredpally on 07.07.2022”.
14a) PW.3 Smt.Jeevan Sandhya is the circumstantial witness and daughter-in- law of PWs.1 and 2 and wife of PW.4 and she has deposed that PWs.1 and 2 are her in-laws and that in the year 2011, while they are residing at Durgabhai :: PAGE NO. 35 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Deshmukh colony, Bagh Amberpet, along with her husband and PWs 1 and 2 in the apartment, her father in law/PW2 has acquired the land admeasuring 4500
Sq.yards situated at Bathukamma Kunta,Tarnaka by virtue of a sale cum GPA from his cousin namely C.V. Raja Ram and out of 4500 Sq. yards, an extent of 2800 sq. yards approximately has taken over under Urban Land Ceiling scheme of the government and the surplus land of 1200 Sq. meters or 1000 sq. yards was remained available in favour of her father in law/PW2 and as there is a rival claim to that land from one Mekala Sudhakara Reddy/A1. She further deposed that his son/A2, PW2 filed a Civil Suit before City Civil Court,
Secunderabad vide O.S. No.669 of 2011 and obtained interim injunction against the respondent/ defendants therein vide order, dt.18.10.2011 and during the subsisting of the injunction order, on 21.10.2011, her father in law/PW2 along with her husband Sharath Mudaliar started from the house at about 4.45 A.M.
in the car to go to that land situated at Bathukamma Kunta for the purpose of performing pooja and herself and PW1 also prepared to go along with PW2 and her husband, but they asked them not to come saying that some friends of her husband and others will be coming to the land. She further deposed that thereafter, within one hour, her mother in law/PW1 has received a phone to her mobile phone from some body else and she received information from PW.1 in a weeping mood and stated that her husband and father in law/PW2 were assaulted by Mekala Sudhakara Reddy and others and the person who made phone also informed as stated by PW1 that PW2 and her husband sustained severe injuries and they are not in conscious and after knowing the fact that :: PAGE NO. 36 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
her husband and father in law/PW1 were shifted to a hospital in 108 Ambulance to the Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad and then herself and PW1 together went to Yashodha hospital and reached the hospital by 7.00 A.M.
14b) PW.3 further deposed that she found her husband and PW2 were admitted in the hospital and they are undergoing treatment in ICU and when she saw her husband in ICU, she noticed that he sustained severe head injury on the left temporal region and his left leg was found fractured and his left index finger was also broken and he have also seen her father in law/PW2 in the hospital with severe bleeding injuries on his face, swelling over the face and dislocation of jaw and her husband was there in ICU till 25.11.2011 and undergone further treatment in the same hospital and her father in law/ PW2 also was in ICU for few days and undergone further treatment in the same hospital. She further deposed that on 21.10.2011, she accompanied with PW1 to P.S. Lallaguda and gave a report to the police to take necessary action in the matter and then on the same day, police examined and recorded her statement and because of the injuries caused to her husband, even after discharge from the hospital, he was unable to speak and as such, on the medical advise of the doctors, he undergone speech therapy, physio-therapy and he is under medication for about one year and bedridden. She further deposed that her husband also undergone three surgeries within in the span of four months and that police also examined her husband in the year 2016 and even after prolonged treatment, there was no improvement in the health :: PAGE NO. 37 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
condition of her husband, even till that day of giving her evidence before the court.
14c)PW.3 has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused and it is elicited from her that in the year 2011, her husband/ PW.4 and her father-in-law/PW.2 met with accident while proceeding to Vijayawada but she cannot say that was taken place in the month of November 2011 and she did not visit the place of incident on 21.10.2011 and also elicited from her that after discharge of her husband/ PW.4 from the hospital, she has seen the police when they visit their house and recorded the statement of her husband in the year 2016. She also further categorically stated in the cross examination that when the police visited their house, she handedover certain medical records such as discharge summary and hospital bills to the police but she did not obtain acknowledgement to that effect. On this aspect, it is the contention of the learned defence counsel that absolutely there is no such medical record filed by the police along with the charge sheet and excerpt medical certificates marked on behalf of the prosecution, no discharge summary and no hospital bills are filed by the prosecution and as such, the testimony of PW.3 has to be scrutinized with due care and caution with the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.
:: PAGE NO. 38 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
14d)However, it is further elicited from PW.3 that she and PW.1 together went to Yashoda Hospital at about 7 a.m. and found that PWs.2 and 4 are undergoing treatment and they were in ICU and she noticed severe head injury over the left temporal region of her husband and left leg was found fractured and his left index finger was also broken. Whereas she stated that she did not stated to the police that on 21.10.2011 she accompanied with PW.1 to the police station Lallaguda and gave report to the police to take necessary action in the matter.
15a) PW.4 Sharath Mudaliar is the crucial witness and husband of PW.3 and he is also victim in the hands of accused as per the version of prosecution and he has deposed that PWs.1 and 2 are his parents and PW.3 is his wife and as on 21.10.2011, he along with his parents and wife residing at Durgabhai
Deshmukh Colony in their rental house and on that day at about 4.30 or 5.00
A.M., he along with his father/ PW2 and his friends consisting of four or five members went to Tarnaka to their land situated at Tarnaka to perform bhoomi pooja along with injunction order granted by the court but he do not remember the names of his friends who came along with them on the day. He further deposed that after reaching the land at Tarnaka and after performing the pooja they were about to leave the land, by the time one Mekala Sudhakar Reddy/A1, one Rama Krishna Reddy/A2, Sekhar Reddy/A3 and some others consisting of six or seven persons came to the land and broken the gate and started abusing them as “AREY LANJAKODAKA MUMMULANI CHAMPESTAM” and they started :: PAGE NO. 39 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
beating them with sticks. He further deposed that when they resisted showing injunction order copy to accused but they did not listen to them and continued beating him indiscriminately with the sticks and when he tried to escape from the assault, he sustained injuries over his fingers of both the hands and on his back and he sustained the fracture injury to his leg. He further deposed that out of those persons, A1 Sudhakar Reddy assaulted on him with a stick on his head and beat him due to which he sustained severe head injury and blood oozed from the head injury and he fell down due to such assault and in the meanwhile his father tried to rescue him from the assault, and at the same time both A1 and A2 also assaulted on his father/PW2 and beat him with the sticks indiscriminately due to which his father also sustained injuries over the head and his father also received bleeding from the eyes and in view of the injuries caused to him, himself became unconscious and regained his consciousness in some hospital. He further deposed that he was in coma for about five or six months and after regaining his consciousness in the hospital, he was discharged from the hospital and undergone further treatment from time to time in Yasodha hospital, Secunderabad and when he was in the hospital, the police came to him but by the time he was unable to speak the facts to the police and he identified MOs.1 and 2 confronted to him by the learned Public Prosecutor.
15b)PW.4 the injured witness was cross examined by the learned counsel
for the accused and it is elicited from him that his friends and friends of his
:: PAGE NO. 40 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
father/PW.2 though present at the time of the incident, they did not interfere to rescue him and he stated that those friends ran away from the spot but he did not state the physical features of the persons who came and attacked on him to the police and the incident took place outside the gate of the compound wall and he did not know the relationship of his father/ PW.2 with the land in dispute at Bathukammakunta and he categorically stated that firstly the assailants assaulted on him and then assaulted on his father, but he did not know what happened on the day and after becoming unconscious, he gained consciousness in the hospital; but he does not know that he was shifted to
Whitus Hospital on the day. When a specific question asked to the witness,
PW.4 replied that he did not remember whether he stated to the police that he was shifted to Whitus hospital as in Ex.P3 (a portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C.). The learned counsel also pointed out the witness about the various criminal cases filed against the accused persons and he replied that “I do not remember that I gave evidence in CC.No.74 of 2014 as PW.2 before the Special Metropolitan
Magistrate Court on 8.1.2015 and he does not remember that the case in
CC.No.74 of 2014 he deposed along with his father/PW.2 and mother/PW.1 as
present in the scene of offence of this case, but he do not remember that he gave evidence as PW.2 in another case in CC.No.124 of 2014 on the file of
Special Metropolitan Magistrate Court on 27.8.2015. The answers elicited from
PW.4, it is the contention of the learned counsel that according to the prosecution case that this witness/PW.4 was hospitalized in ICU and he was in
Coma for a long period and he was not able to give statement to the police for :: PAGE NO. 41 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
about 5 years, but in fact, even before 2015, he has given evidence in various criminal cases subsequent to the evidence to that the delay in recording the statement of PW.4 by police with abnormal delay is a serious lacunae in the prosecution case when he is able to give evidence in 2014, 2015 and the prosecution version that he was not in a position to give statement to the police for about 4 years is creating a shadow of doubt in the case of prosecution. Ultimately it is elicited from PW.4 that he did not remember that he gave statement to Lallaguda police in Cr.No.72 of 2019 that the incident of this case took place on 21.11.2011. Further-more, it is also an admitted fact by
PW.4 that it is true I was examined by police Marredpally in a case in Cr.No.119 of 2022 on 7.7.2022 and it is true that the statement given to the Marredpally police, he stated the fact that he along with his father only went to
Bathukammakunta land on that day. Therefore, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that witnesses/ PWs.1 to 4 have given contradictory statements from time to time in respect of the actual incident dated 21.10.2011 and in all the criminal cases in which they have given evidence are self-contradictor statements and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration as a gospel truth and their evidence has to be scrutinized with due care and caution.
15c)PW.4 was again recalled by the prosecution for the purpose of confrontation of certain material objects i.e. blue colour jeans pant marked as
MO.6 and shirt as MO.7 and also banian without sleeves as MO.8 but the witness stated that he do not remember to whom the police handedover those :: PAGE NO. 42 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
clothes after the date of the incident and for the first time he has seen the clothes under MOs.6 to 8. On this aspect also the learned counsel for the accused cross examined suggesting that MOs.6 to 8 are planted for the purpose of this case and they are not material objects connected to this case and they are invented only for the purpose of this case.
16a) To corroborate the contention of prosecution, one of the eye witness to the incident is examined as PW.5 Mohd Osman and he has deposed that he is having a Royal Juice Center at Amberpet during 2000 to 2015 and that PW4
Sharath used to visit his Juice Center along with LW5-Zaheeruddhin regularly and through PW.4 he knew PW.2 and in the year 2011, on one day PW4 informed that that they are having land at Tarnaka and there is a bhoomi pooja programme and asked him to come over there along with LW5-Zaheeruddhin.
He further deposed that on 21.10.2011, himself along with LW5-
Zaheeruddhin, went to the land situated at Tarnaka near by Water Tank and reached at about 5.30 A.M. and met PW4 and his father-PW2 at the land and at that time, apart from PW2 and PW4, four other persons were also there but he do not know their names and they are aged about 40 to 50 years and at the same time, an Indica car came there to the land by self driving. He further deposed that at the same time, four persons also came there in four different bikes to the land and they pushed the gate and entered into the land shouting against PWs2 and 4 that they should be killed saying the land belongs to them and at the same time, one Sudhakar Reddy (A1) assaulted on PW4 with a stick :: PAGE NO. 43 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
over the head, due to which PW4 fell down and at the same time, A1 also assaulted on PW2 with the same stick and beat him on the head, due to such assault, both PWs 2 and 4 sustained bleeding injuries.
16b) PW.5 further deposed that in the meanwhile the persons who came on the motorbikes also assaulted and kicked PW4 and then PW4 became unconscious and after such incident, the assailants ran away from the spot and in the meanwhile, somebody have called 108 Ambulance to the spot and the
Ambulance arrived at about 6.30 A.M. and both PWs 2 and 4 were shifted to
Whitus House Hospital, Tarnaka and he also went to the White House Hospital along with LW5-Zaheeruddhin in the Ambulance. He further deposed that subsequently wife of PW2 and wife of PW4 came to the Whitus House Hospital,
Tarnaka and on the advice of the doctors at the Whitus House hospital, both
PW2 and PW4 were shifted to Yashodha hospital at about after 10.00 A..M. and except LW5-Zaheeruddhin, no body accompanied along with them to Whitus
House hospital on the day and MO.1 is the stick that was used by A1 at the time of assault but he cannot identify those persons who kicked PW4 when he fell down and before that incident, on one day PW4 informed him that there is a dispute with regard to their land with their family and A1’s family.
16c)In the course of cross examination, PW.5 stated that he never visited the land at Tarnaka at any time prior to 21.10.2011 and he reached
Bathukammakunta land at about 5.30 a.m. and he started from Yakutpura at about 4.30 a.m. and went there in an auto after meeting Zaheeruddin and :: PAGE NO. 44 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
according to him both Zaheeruddin and himself went to Tarnaka on motor bike of Zaheeruddin. He also admitted that the house of Zaheeruddin is situated at
Amberpet which is 1 ½ KM distance from the house of PW.2 situated at DD colony and Zaheeruddin was aware of the location of the land at Tarnaka.
Whereas he categorically stated in his cross examination that he did not state to the police that two zypsy vehicles were removed by PW.2 and PW.4 from the land as in Ex.D4 previous statement given to the police. He further stated in his cross examination that police officials have seen the papers shown by PWs.2 and 4 in the torch of the mobile and then left that place. He also stated in his cross examination that he did not state the physical features and identification mark of any of the assailants to the police and he did not know who gave information to the police on that day about the alleged incident. The learned counsel also elicited several facts from the evidence of PW.5 that except on the date of incident, he did not met PWs.2 and 4 in the hospital while they were undergoing treatment. He further stated that the entire incident of this case took place for about 15 to 20 minutes and further admitted both PWs.2 and 4 came to court along with him on the date of his evidence and there is nothing on record in writing to show that he and Zaheeruddin together accompanied with PWs.2 and 4 and admitted them in Whitus hospital and Yashoda hospital on that day. More-over, PW.5 has admitted that it is true I did not state in the statement given to the police that those persons shouted against PW.2 and they should be killed saying that land belongs to them and he did not state to the police that A1 assaulted on PW.4 with a stick on his head and Sudhakar/A1 :: PAGE NO. 45 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
beat with stick on the head of PW.2. It is also admitted by PW.5 that he did not state before the police that due to assault PWs.2 and 4 sustained bleeding injuries and he did not state in the statement given to the police that somebody called 108 ambulance to the spot and that ambulance had arrived at about 6.30 p.m.
17a) PW.6 Syed Zaheeruddhin is another eye witness to the case of prosecution with regard to the incident and he has deposed that he is a friend of PW.5 and that PW4 used to come to the Juice shop of PW5 now and then and as such, he knew PW4 and that PW.4 used to say that he is having land at
Tarnaka and in the year 2011, PW4 informed him that there is a pooja programme at their land at Tarnaka on 21.10.2011 and then himself and PW5-
Osman went to the land at about 5.30 A.M. on his motorbike and when they reached there, they have seen both PWs 2 and 4 and two or three persons were also there along with them and they were removing two zipsy vehicles and also removing the name board of Sudhakar Reddy which was fixed to the gate and at that time, two police constables also came there and questioned them as to why they are removing the name board and then PW2 has shown a copy of injunction order to the police and after showing the injunction order by
PW2, those constables left that place.
:: PAGE NO. 46 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
17b) PW.6 further deposed that PWs 2 and 4 placed some chairs and by sitting taking the pooja equipment, so that himself and PW5 were away from that pooja place and in the meanwhile, a person came to that place in an
Indica car and on seeing the arrival of that person in the car, PW2 started raising his voice that Sudhakar Reddy came and at the same time, 3 or 4 persons also came there in three or four motorbikes and then the said person
Sudhakar Reddy started assault against PW4 and beat him with a stick due to such assault, PW4 sustained head injury and became unconscious and at the same time, two more persons assaulted on PW2 and beat him with a stick over the face and both PWs 2 and 4 fell down and became unconscious and then those assailants left that place. He further deposed that somebody have made a phone call to 108 Ambulance and also to the police and in the meanwhile, the police arrived to the spot and enquired with him about the incident and asked him to help in shifting the injured persons to the hospital and then in 108 Ambulance, both PWs 2 and 4 were shifted to Whitus hospital situated at Tarnaka. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, the wives of
PWs 2 and 4 came to the Whitus hospital and after their arrival, both PWs 2 and 4 were shifted to Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad. He further deposed that himself identified Sudhakara Reddy assaulted on PW4 present in the court hall on the date of evidence and pointed out A1-Sudhakar Reddy (the accused persons sat in the court as per their array) and he also identified the stick under MO.1 used at the time of assault of PWs 2 and 4 and himself identified the stick MO1 with which PW4 was assaulted and that PW2 was also :: PAGE NO. 47 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
assaulted with the similar stick like MO1 and he further stated that the other assailants 3 or 4 persons were also in possession of the similar sticks like MO1 at the time of the incident.
17c) It is also elicited from the cross examination of PW.6 that he never visited the land at Tarnaka prior to the alleged incident dated 21.10.2011 and the location was not shared by PW.4 to identify the land at Taranaka and when he made a phone call to PW.4 Sharat to know the whereabouts of the land before reaching, he told him that the land is situated near water tank and as such, they could able to reach the land. However, according to PW.6, the land at
Tarnaka is of 800 to 1000 sq.yards bounded by the compound wall with gate and PWs.2 and 4 came to the land in Swift car of PW.4 and he did not remember the registration number of the car. He also stated that he has no prior acquaintance with any of the assailants and he never seen them prior to the incident and he did not state the physical features of the assailants to the police at the time of examination and he has seen those persons along with
PW.2 when they reached the site but at the time of incident of assault, he has not seen them at the spot but those persons who has seen them at the site came to Whitus hospital. However, he stated in his cross examination that he did not give statement to the police that some persons came in Indica car to the land in Tarnaka as per Ex.D5 a portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement. Further after one week of the incident, he met PWs.2 and 4 at their house at DD Colony and it is pointed by the learned counsel for the accused that according to :: PAGE NO. 48 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
PWs.1 and 3, PW.2 was hospitalized for 15 days and whereas PW.4 was admitted in ICU for about 28 days, but this witness has deposed that after one week of the incident, he met PWs.2 and 4 at their house at DD colony.
18a) PW.7 S.Venkateshwarlu is the family friend of PW.2 and also another eye witness to the case of prosecution and he has deposed that PW1 and her family are his family friends at Khammam and that on 20.10.2011, he along with LW7-Bhikshamaiah came to Hyderabad to attend a function and at that time, he made a phone call to PW2 and at that time, he was informed that on the next day there is a Bhoomi Pooja at their land Tarnaka and he asked him and Bhikshamaiah to come to the land at about 5.00 A.M. and that on 21.10.2011, himself and Bhikshamaiah/LW7 together went to the land at
Tarnaka situated besides Water Tank at about 5.15 A.M., by the time, PW2, PW4 and four or five persons were also there. He further deposed that at the same time, one Sudhakar Reddy and one Rama Krishna Reddy together came in an
Indica Car and further five or six persons also came there on two wheelers and then Sudhakar Reddy started beating PW4 with a stick, shouting against him as
LANJAKODAKA CHAMPESTA and that Sudhakar Reddy assaulted on PW4 with stick on his head, due to which PW4 fell down.
18b) PW.7 further deposed that at that time, PW2 was showing the order copy of the court to Sudhakar Reddy and then Sudhakar Reddy also assaulted on PW2 on his face, due to which PW2 also fell down and both PWs 2 and 4 :: PAGE NO. 49 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
sustained bleeding injuries and immediately after the incident, Sudhakar Reddy and others left that place and immediately he made a phone call to PW1 and informed her about the incident and he also made a call to 108 Ambulance and within 10 minutes, the Ambulance came there and then they have shifted both PWs 2 and 4 to Whitus hospital situated at Habsiguda. He further deposed that on the advise of the doctors at Whitus hospital, both PWs 2 and 4 were shifted to Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad in the same Ambulance and he identified Sudhakar Reddy/A1 and Rama Krishna Reddy/ A2 among A4, A5 and
A8 but he do not know the names of other persons whom he has seen along with PWs 2 and 4 at the site on the day.
18c)PW.7 was also cross examined by the counsel for the accused with reference to the previous statements given to the police under Ex.D9 omissions and several material facts has not stated by PW.7 in the statement given to the police.
19a) PW.8 U.Bhikshamaiah is also another family friend of PW.2 and eye witness to the incident and he has deposed that he knew PWs 1 to 7 and also knew PW2’s family as they stay in the same locality at Jublieepura, Khammam and on 20.10.2011, himself and PW7 together came to Hyderabad to attend a function at the house of his brother in law and at that time, as usual he called
PW2 to talk with him over the phone and then he was informed that there is a
Bhoomi Pooja Programme at the land at Tarnaka and asked them to come over :: PAGE NO. 50 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
there at the early hours on the next day. He further deposed that himself and
PW7 started from Sun City and reached Tarnaka-Water Tank within 20 to 25 minutes and when they reached the land at Tarnaka by 5.20 A.M. and at that time, PW2, PW4 accompanied with three of four persons were there in the land and cleaning the land premises and within five minutes, four persons came in a car and four persons came on three motorbikes and immediately they have assaulted on PW4 and beat him with a stick over his head, due to which PW4 sustained severe head injury and other parts of the body.
19b) PW.8 further deposed that at the same time, PW2 tried to show a copy of the order of the court to them, but those assailants also assaulted on PW2 with the stick and beat him over his face and that PW2 fell down due to such assault and the incident happened for about ten minutes and thereafter the assailants left and meanwhile, somebody called 108 Ambulance and after half an hour, 108 Ambulance came to the spot. He further deposed that immediately they have shifted both PWs 2 and 4 in 108 Ambulance to
Habsiguda Whitus hospital and thereafter the condition of PWs 2 and 4 was serious and that on the advise of the doctors at Whitus hospital, they have shifted them to Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad in the same Ambulance and he identified Sudhakar Reddy (A1) and also identified Rama Krishna Reddy (A2)
in the court on the date of giving their evidence.
:: PAGE NO. 51 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
19c)In the course of cross examination of PW.8, it is elicited from PW.8 that originally PW.2 was a bullet motor vehicle mechanic and thereafter he started agriculture in a Pallegudem village nearby Khammam and 6 months prior to the date of incident, once PWs.8 and 4 together went to land at
Tarnaka to see the land in the morning hours but he did not state in the statement given to the police that the land is situated at ward no.137, block no.F of Bathukammakunta as in Ex.D10 portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement given to the police. Further-more, in the cross examination of PW.8 he categorically stated that “Originally PW2 was a Bullet motor vehicle mechanic and thereafter started doing agriculture in a Pallegudem village near by
Khammam. As on 2011, PW4 was doing contract works. Two or three years prior to 2011, PW2 and his family shifted to Hyderabad. PWs 1 and 2 are active members of Communist Party at Khammam. Six months prior to the date of incident, once myself and PW4 together went to the land at Tarnaka, to see the land in the morning hours. I did not state in the statement given to the police as Ward No.137 and Block No.F of Bathukammakunta as in Ex.D10-potion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement”. It is further elicited that “after five or six years of the incident, police called me and PW7 to P.S. Lallaguda and examined us. The S.I.
of Police namely Kranthi Kumar examined me in the month of October, 2016. In the month of October, 2016,when we came to Hyderabad to give statement to the police, we did not met PWs 2 and 4. Myself and PW7 have not visited the police station to report the incident to the police, till we were examined in the month of October, 2016. PW2 or any of his family members did not ask us to :: PAGE NO. 52 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
come to police station to give statement relating to the incident till 2016. I know the fact that a prudent man like me is a witness of any incident of assault, one should go to the police station and give information to the police about such incident. There were about two or three members in 108
Ambulance and I was under the impression that they might have information about the incident to the police. I was not using mobile phone as on 2011. I did not state in the statement given to the police that on 21.10.2011, I along with
PW7 accompanied with Ananda Mudaliar and his family members to the above mentioned plot as in Ex.D11-portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement. I did not state at the time of my examination by the police that “further it is learnt that again injured Anand Mudaliar and his son were shifted to Yashodha hospital,
Secunderabad for better treatment” as in Ex.D12-portion of 161 Cr.P.C.
Statement. I have identified the accused herein today in the court as they were shown to me in the court premises”.
20a) To ascertain the scene of offence panchanama, the mediator is examined as PW.9 M.Mahender and he has deposed that on 21.10.2011, at about 4.00 to 5.00 P.M., police called him on the way to Water Works
Department at Tarnaka and behind water tank, there was an open place and police informed them that there was an incident of quarrel taken place and that police came for investigation and that police have shown the area of the land and there was a Swift car in the land and there are some plastic chairs, and there was broken stick and some blood stained marks on the stick and the :: PAGE NO. 53 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
blood stained marks on the ground and police seized those material and also collected blood samples from the floor and a panchanama was conducted to that effect and noted the details of place of incident and a Sketch plan was also prepared by the police in his presence and obtained his signatures and one more person was also there and police obtained his signatures also and he identified his signatures on crime details form, dt.21.10.2011 at page No.2 and page No.4 and crime details form, under Ex.P2 and he identified two material objects /MOs1 and 2 which were seized by the police, but he denied his signatures on chits affixed to both MO1 and MO2 and denied his signature on panch chit affixed to the cloth cover containing blood stained earth in a plastic cover.
20b)PW.9 stated in his cross examination that “It is true I am an active
Communist party member in Hyderabad city having office responsibilities as on 2011 and he is a District Committee Member of CPM and he has not seen any
Zypsy vehicles name board in the site on the date of incident and he further stated that the descriptive particulars of the place of occurrence at page no.3 of the panchanama filed, date and time was kept blank and further admitted that he is a resident of Krishna Nagar, Kachiguda situated at a distance of 7
KMs from the place of panchanama.
:: PAGE NO. 54 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
21a) To ascertain the confession of A5 to A7, the mediator is examined as
PW.10 Mohd Saleem and he has deposed that he knew LW15-Sd.Yakub as friend and police did not call him for any panchanama. He further deposed that in the year 2011, on one day, when he was present near by Secunder- abad Railway station, a police jeep came and taken him in the jeep to P.S. Lal- laguda and there police took his Identity Proof and asked him to come again as and when called by the police and that no proceedings were conducted by the police in his presence and police did not taken his signatures on that day and when learned Addl. Public Prosecutor confronted the panchanamas dt.30.10.2011 to identify the signature of the witness if any on the purported confession cum seizure panchanamas of A5 to A7 and the witness denied the signature on it as witness No.2, and nothing was seized by the police in their presence and no person made any confession before him and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
21b) The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, cross examined this witness and tried to elicit from him that on 30.10.2011, at about 5.20 p.m. police Lallaguda called him to the police station along with some Yakub/ LW15, and at that time, the police prepared a confession cum seizure panchanama of one Musti Prabhakar @ Raju and one Gundala Neepal
Reddy and seized two motorbikes bearing No. AP29AG8546 and another motor- bike bearing registration No.AP29AQ6418 under cover of panchanama and also recorded their confessional statements and that himself and Yakub acted as :: PAGE NO. 55 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
mediators to the proceedings conducted by the police, but he denied pan- chanama proceedings conducted by police in his presence.
22a) To prove the injuries sustained by the victim/PW.4, the medical officer is examined as PW.11 P.Sai Sudarshan and he has deposed that on 21.10.2011, he treated a patient by name Sharath Babu/ PW4 and on his examination, he noticed the patient with severe head injury that is left fronto-parietal sub-dural hematoma, fracture left parietal bone, bi-malleolar fracture left leg and crush injury on left index finger and patient underwent craniotomy + bone flap placement + screw fixation with fibular plate + debridement and repair of index finger on 24.10.2011 and subsequently he was discharged on 16.11.2011 and he issued Ex.P3 letter on 17.05.2013 under the Head of “whom so it may concern” when patient is still had speech disturbances, unable to comprehend and talk coherently and in this situation he was not able to attend to the court.
22b) PW.11 was subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused and it is elicited that “It is true the Ex.P3 does not reflect the purpose or occasion for which Ex.P3 was issued. It true Ex.P3 is a photocopy. It is true the signature on photocopy and the signature under attestation does not match duly signed by the same person. The signature on photocopy is not my signature. It is true when a Medico Legal Case came for medical examination to the hospital, they will go to causality first. Entries will be made in MLC register and then sent to the respective department depending on the :: PAGE NO. 56 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
treatment required to the patient. It is true the history of the patient whether it is an assault case or otherwise will be recorded in only MLC Register. It is true the case sheet and discharge summary of the patient is best record to show admission, treatment and discharge. It is true the case sheet will reflect day to day instructions and the particulars of the treating doctor. It is true in case of surgery to the patient, the theater notes would disclose the name of the surgeon and the surgical procedure done”. It is further elicited from this witness that “It is true I cannot say as to the name or any other particulars of patients treated by me on 21.10.2023 and if any surgery is attended, I cannot say the details of the surgery performed without reference to contemporaneous record. It is true today, while I was giving evidence, I have not seen the case sheet or theater notes. It is true I gave evidence today looking into contents of Ex.P3 only. It is true Ex.P3 does not disclose that I have treated the patient by name Sharath Babu/PW4 or attended surgery performed on him. It is true Ex.P3 was prepared on purported stationary of Yashodha hospital and signed by somebody on behalf of Yashodha hospital and attestation was done by me. I left Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad in the year 2014. I received summons to attend this court on 05.02.2024. It is true the summon received by me addressed to Yashodha hospital and I received the summon through a constable at Hi-Tech City, Yashodha hospital. It is true I am brought by PW3 to the court today. It is true while I am giving evidence, father of PW4 is also sitting in the court hall today. It is true in Ex.P3, there is no any indication as to on which basis the details of injuries and the surgery performed :: PAGE NO. 57 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
were mentioned”.
22c) PW.11 stated in his cross examination that “It is true in Ex.P3 there is no indication as to on which basis the details of injuries and surgery performed were mentioned and he has no personal knowledge about the patient by name,
Sharath Babu/ PW.4 and the treatment given to him and he deposed evidence only to accommodate prosecution at the instance of PW.2 and his family members. PW.11 admitted in his cross examination at the instance of PW.2, he came to court to give evidence and deposed the evidence on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the certificate issued by another doctor.
23a) To prove the extra judicial confession of the accused, the mediators are examined as PW.12 Jude and PW.13 Joseph Rajan. Whereas PW.12 deposed that he is a social worker and he knew PW.13 and on 21.11.2011, at about 8.00 A.M., he was called by police South Lallaguda to the police station along with Joseph Rajan/LW18 and on that day, the police asked them to sign on some papers and accordingly to oblige the police, they signed on blank papers and there was no body in the custody of the police and they did not ask anybody and no person made any confession in his presence and except putting signature as directed by the police he do not know any facts of this case and that police has shown him one stick at the police station and asked him to sign on some papers and he identified his signatures under Ex.P4 on purported confessional statement dt.02.11.2011 and also the seizure report :: PAGE NO. 58 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
dt.02.11.2011 and another seizure report dt.06.08.2012 and further when learned Addl. Public Prosecutor confronted MO.1 stick to this witness but he denied the signature on panch chit affixed on MO1 and he turned to the case of prosecution. Similarly PW.13 another mediator examined by the prosecution has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to panchanama proceedings conducted by the police and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
23b) Both PWs.12 and 13 were subjected to cross examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and it is elicited from PW.12 that on 02.11.2011, when police called him along with Joseph Rajan to the police station, there were two persons in the custody of the police namely one Mekala
Sudakara reddy and one Mekala Chandra Sekhar Reddy and on questioning both of them voluntarily stated the facts admitting their complicity with the incident allegedly took place at the land at Tarnaka and said facts was reduced into writing by way of panchanama and in pursuance of such confession of those persons police seized a stick and one Indigo car and that subsequently on 06.08.2012 again police called them to the police station and seized the clothes produced by one Anand Mudaliar in our presence and they acted as a mediators to the seizure proceedings and that the panchanama proceedings and seizure reports are prepared in their presence and they acted as mediators and they are deposing falsely that police obtained their signatures on blank papers but he denied preparation of panchanama proceedings in his :: PAGE NO. 59 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
presence. PW.13 was also cross examined and similar facts were elicited in his cross examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as stated by PW.11 in his cross examination. Therefore, it is established that extra judicial confession of the accused in the presence of mediators is not proved by prosecution and also seizure of material object from the possession of the accused.
24a) The police personnel who saw PW.2 and PW.4 with injuries at the first instance at the scene of offence is examined as PW.14 .V.V.Satyanarayana, the then PC 4588 of P.S. Lallaguda and he has deposed that he knew
Koteshwara Rao/LW12, police constable, who worked in Lallaguda P.S. along with him and while he was working in P.S. Lallaguda, in the year 2011, on 21.10.2011, he was on duty along with LW12 in Blue Colt Team and they received an information in wireless VHF Set from the Section Incharge in the designation of Head Constable of Lallaguda P.S. stating that some people gathered the land of one Sudhakar Reddy and asked them to go there and that land situated at Vijayapuri colony and that himself and LW12/ Koteshwara Rao together reached that land by 5.10 A.M. and when they reached there, they found as many as 10 to 15 persons were there in the land and some pooja programme was going on and then they questioned them what is going on and out of those persons, an elderly person stated that they obtained an Injunction order from the court, so that they are going to perform Bhoomi Pooja and then they that place and went to P.S. and informed the same to the Section
Incharge. He further deposed that on the same day at about 6.00 A.M., again :: PAGE NO. 60 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Section Incharge told through VHF set that quarrel was going on in the same land and asked them to go there immediately and that within ten minutes they went there again and found two male persons age about 50 years and 30 years respectively sustained bleeding head injuries. In the meanwhile, 108
Ambulance came there and they shifted both the injured to Whitus hospital situated at Habsiguda and again the injured persons were shifted to Yashodha hospital, Secunderabad in the same 108 Ambulance and they informed the same to the Section Incharge and his statement was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police on the same day.
24b)PW.14 has stated in his cross examination that he did not observe the land as to removal of any vehicles or articles and he cannot say that some vehicle and some boards were removed on the spot so that at the time of second visit of the land, he and another constable Koteshwar Rao went there in
Rakshak vehicle and they have supervised in shifting of the injured persons in 108 ambulance so that they have not received any blood stained marks to their wearing clothes. However, he stated in his cross examination that he cannot say now that on 21.10.2011 he was on which duty and it is admitted that he has gone through the statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. given to the police before giving his evidence and there is no specific rule that the section incharge is not the below rang of Sub Inspector and he cannot say on what time his statement was recorded by the police/ NRK Goud.
:: PAGE NO. 61 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
25a) To ascertain the extra judicial confession of accused, the mediator is examined as PW.15 Yakub and he deposed that he knew PW10 as friend and in the year 2011, on one day when he was present at the Secunderabad Railway
Station at Auto stand along with an auto driver/PW10 and at that time, Sub In- spector of Police namely Goud of Lallaguda P.S. stopped the auto of PW10 and asked them to come to P.S. Lallaguda, so that he along with PW10 went to the
P.S. Lallaguda at about 4.00 P.M. and there Police asked at P.S. to sign on cer- tain papers and to oblige the police, himself and PW10 signed certain papers but no panchanama proceedings were conducted in their presence and no per- sons made any confession in their presence and nothing was seized by the po- lice in their presence and he identified his signature on panchanama dt.30.10.2011 that is purported confession cum seizure panchanamas of A5 to
A7 and he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
25b) PW.15 was subjected to cross examination by the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor with the permission of the court and tried to elicit that on 30.10.2011, at about 1720 hours, police Lalaguda called him to the Railway
Station, Secunderabad along with PW10 and also at house No.MIG7, HUDA employees Colony, Saroor Nagar, at that time, the police prepared a confession cum seizure panchanama of one Musti Prabhakar @ Raju and one Gundala
Neepal Reddy, Neeraj Nayan @ Neeraj Reddy and seized three motorbikes bearing No.AP29AG8546 and another motorbike bearing registration
No.AP29AQ641, AP29BK9433 under cover of panchanama and also recorded :: PAGE NO. 62 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
their confessional statements and that himself and PW10 acted as mediators to the proceedings conducted by the police but he denied preparation of panchanama proceedings in his presence. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the extra judicial confession of the accused and seizure of material objects in the presence of this witness is not proved by prosecution.
26a) To prove the nature of injuries sustained by PWs.2 and 4, the medical officer is examined as PW.16 Dr.T.Sai Narayana Rao, who is the then House
Surgeon and Internship with Yashodha hospital in the year 2011 and he has deposed that he knew Dr. Sanjay Divakar, who worked in the same hospital as on 2011 and he can identify the signatures of Dr. Sanjay Divakar/ LW19 and he identified the signature of Dr.Sanjay Divakar on the injury certificate, dt.18.11.2011 and the said certificate was pertaining to the patient Anand, s/o.
Jagannadham and he also identified another certificate dt.18.11.2011 in re- spect of the patient by name Sharath Babu.P. s/o. Anand.P., duly signed by Dr.
P. Sanjay Divakar/ LW19 and as per the injury certificate of Anand.P, the injuries which are (1) Severe head injury, (2) Left frontal bone fracture, (3) left maxilla fracture, (4) bicondilar and central mandible fracture, (5) left frontal contusion and (6) left thin frontal SDH and said injuries are grievous in nature as per opin- ion and certificate Ex.P6 issued by him. He further deposed that as per the injury certificate of Sharath Babu.P, the injuries noted which are (1) Severe head injury, (2)Right FP and tentorial SAH, (3) Fracture left parietal bone, (4) :: PAGE NO. 63 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Fracture left temporal bone, (5) Bimalleolar fracture left leg and (6)Crush injury on left index finger and that certificate was issued by Dr. Sanjay Divakar with opinion that such injuries are grievous in nature as per Ex.P7.
26b) PW.16 has been cross examined by the learned counsel and it is elicited from him that he came to court to give evidence along with PW.3 Jeevan Sand- hya and her husband Sharath Babu/ PW.4. He further stated that he completed his internship in the year 2014 and whereas he joined in Yashoda Hospital in the year 201. Therefore, the testimony given by PW.16 on behalf of another doctor, it seems from the evidence of PW.16 that he was not at all working in
Yashoda hospital as on 2011 as he admitted that he completed his internship in the year 2014 and then only joined in Yashoda hospital in the year 2015 and as such, there is no credence to the testimony of PW.16. Further-more, he stated that he has no personal knowledge of contents of Exs.P6 and P7 and its source of mentioning the nature of injuries and he also admitted that those certificates under Exs.P6 and P7 should have been issued as on 22.11.2011 or thereafter, but in the certificates date is mentioned as 18.11.2011 and whereas under the signature of Dr.Sanjay Divakar no date was mentioned under his sig- nature and he did not file any particulars of injury certificate under Exs.P6 and
P7. He also further admitted that it is true as per Exs.P6 and P7 OP patients were admitted in the hospital on 21.10.2011 with the report on 21.10.2011 at 7 a.m. and the MLC abstract was not enclosed to Exs.P6 and P7.
:: PAGE NO. 64 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
27a) To prove the registration of the case basing on Ex.P1 report lodged by
PW.1, the first investigation officer examined as PW-17 N.Rama Krishna Goud, the then Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Lallaguda and he has deposed that in this case, on 21.10.2011, at about 3.00 P.M., PW.1 Ananda Lakshmi came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report and basing on the contents of said re- port, he registered the case in Cr.No.137 of 2011 under Secs.307 r/w.34 IPC and issued Ex.P8 FIR and took up investigation. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of PW1 and proceeded to scene of offence situated at
Vijayapuri Colony and there observed the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators/ Mahender/ PW9 and Syed Ali/LW14 and conducted
Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama in their presence and seized the broken stick/MO2, blood stained earth under MO9 in the presence of the mediators.
He further deposed that thereafter he visited the Yashoda hospital, Secunder- abad and tried to record the statements of the injured persons namely Ananda
Mudaliar and Sharath Mudaliar, but they were not in a position to speak and undergoing treatment and as such he could not record their statements on the day and thereafter, he recorded the statements of PW3-Jeevana Sandhya, PW5-
Mohd. Osman, PW6-Syed Zaheeruddhin and two constables/ N.V.V. Sathya- narayana/ PW14 and K. Koteshwara Rao/ L.W.12. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of PW2-Anand Mudaliar on 06.08.2012 at the police station and subsequently, on 30.10.2011 at 5.20 P.M., he apprehended A5 and
A6 at Secunderabad Railway Station and interrogated A5 and A6 and in the presence of two mediators/Syed Yakub/PW15 and Mohd.Saleem/ PW10 and :: PAGE NO. 65 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
recorded their confessional statements and seized two motor bikes bearing registration Nos.AP29AQ6418 and AP29AG8546 under cover of panchanama dt.30.10.2011, and the relevant portion of seizure of the motor bikes is marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 respectively.
27b) PW.17 further deposed that basing on the confession of A5 and A6, they also visited the house of A7 situated at Saroor Nagar and their seized a scooter Honda Aviator bearing registration No.AP29BK9433 in the presence of the same mediators PWs 15 and PW10 under cover of panchanama dt.30.10.2011 conducted at 8.30 P.M. and the admissible portion of the seizure is Ex.P11 and then A5 to A7 were taken into custody and effected their arrest and produced them before the court for judicial remand on 31.10.2011. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, A1 and A3 surrendered before the court and they were remanded to the judicial custody and then he filed a requisition before the court seeking custody of A1 and A3 and after granting the police custody, A1 and A3 were taken into custody from Central Prison,
Chenchalguda on 01.11.2011 and brought them to the police station. He further deposed that he recorded the confessional statements of A1 and A3 in the presence of two mediators/ Jude/PW12 and Joseph Rajan/PW13 and seized a Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.AP29AL2877 on public road at HUDA colony and Ex.P12 is the relevant portion of the confessional panchanama and
Ex.P13 is the seizure report and that under the cover of same panchanama, a stick was also seized under MO.1 along with the car and then A1 and A3 :: PAGE NO. 66 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
produced before the court after completion of the police custody for continuation of the judicial remand.
27c) PW.17 further deposed that thereafter he forwarded the material objects/
MO2-stick and MO-9 blood stained earth to TSFSL for the purpose of analysis and report and on 06.08.2012, at 10.00 A.M., PW2-Anand Mudaliar came to the police station along with blood stained clothes such as white colour shirt under
MO3 and white colour pant with leather belt as MO4 and while colour banian under MO5 (P.I. No.65 of 2023) and that PW2 also produced a blue colour jean pant under MO6 and white and red colour check designed shirt under MO7 and another white colour banian cut sleeves under MO8 and he seized them in the presence of PWs 12 and PW13 under cover of seizure report as per Ex.P14 dt.06.08.2012. He further deposed that three motorbikes seized from A5 to A7 were deposited in the court vide P.I. No.109 of 2012, on the file of X Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad on 20.03.2012 and that the
Indigo Car and a stick seized at the instance of A1 on 02.11.2011, were deposited in the court in P.I. No.109 of 2012, on the file of X Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad on 20.03.2012 and subsequently on his suspension by the Department in connection with some other matter, he handed over the CD file to LW27.
:: PAGE NO. 67 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
27d) In the course of cross examination of PW.17, it is elicited from him as hereunder:
“On 21.10.2011, I was on duty from 8.00 A.M. to 10.00 P.M. On 21.10.2011, after knowing about the incident I came to the police station by 6.00 A.M. itself. The FIR issued on 21.10.2011, at 3.00 P.M. was immediately dispatched to all the concerned including the court through a constable. The distance between police station to the court at Secunderabad is about 05 kilometers approximately. It is true the FIR was received in the court at 1.30
P.M. on 22.11.2011. It is true in FIR, the GD entry particulars are not filled in the relevant column provided in FIR. It is true the signature of the informant/PW1 was not obtained in the column provided in FIR. It is true in the report of PW1 under Ex.P1, she has not mentioned the names of any witnesses to the incident. It is true in the statements of PWs 1 and PW3 recorded by me they have not stated the names of any of the witnesses and those who were present at the time of the alleged incident”.It is further elicited that in the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch prepared by me there was no indication of any pooja equipment including breaking of the coconuts in order to perform
Bhoomi Pooja and I did not find any instruments like crow bar or spade or any such instruments. It is true PWs 1 to PW3 did not state in their statements that after the incident, initially they were shifted to Whitus hospital. It is true as per my investigation reveals that the incident took place between 5.30 A.M. to 6.00
A.M. on 20.10.2011. I did not enquired with the doctors about the condition of the injured PWs 2 and PW4 and I did not collect any MLC Extract from Yashodha :: PAGE NO. 68 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
hospital. 108 Ambulance driver and staff were not examined by me and similarly I have not examined the staff of any Rakshak vehicle, as no Rakshak vehicle engaged in visiting the place of offence or the hospital. I cannot say basing on which information of statement, I identified and examined PW5 and
PW6 as eye witnesses to the incident. It is true I examined only PWs 1 to 3,
PW14 and LW12 by 27.10.2011. It is true in Ex.P2, crime details form, it is mentioned that PW1-Ananda Lakshmi has shown the place of offence which is the correct statement mentioned in Ex.P2. Except Maruthi Swift car I did not find other cars at the spot when I visited the scene of offence. It is true in column No.10 of Ex.P2, with regard to recovery of the stick and the blood stained earth, it is not specifically mentioned the manner of packing and mode of recovery”. It is further elicited that “It is true none of the witnesses examined by me stated that the assailants came in a particular car with registration number or two wheelers with description of the two wheelers and their registration numbers. The statements of PW14 and LW12 the constables are kept by me in the part-II CD. I did not obtain any GD Abstract to show the presence of PW14 and LW12 that they were on duty and that they visited the place of occurrence on instructions of the Sector Incharge. I did not examine the constable with whom the FIR was forwarded to the court to ascertain that
FIR was reached the court within the reasonable time and when it was delivered in the court/ Magistrate. As per my investigation, the broken blood stained stick allegedly used by A1 was thrown away in Musi river and could not be recovered. As per the police manual instructions, the material objects :: PAGE NO. 69 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
ought to have forward to the FSL through court, but I forwarded the same through ACP. I did not examine PW2 to ascertain as to the source of procuring the clothes by him and where they were kept till it is produced before me. The clothes and material objects seized in this case were kept in the police station till they were forwarded to the FSL and till depositing in the court after receipt of FSL report. The copy of letter of advice will be kept in the CD file and I do not remember whether the letter of advice kept in the CD file of this case or not. Since PW2 was hospitalized, I enquired about his health condition to record his statement on several occasions, but I did not mention the same in the CD”.
It is elicited from this witness that “It is true that after entering into the GD, the contents of a report disclosing cognizable offence, we give a crime number to the same for registration of a case. I did not observe any name board displayed at the land and its removal, when I visited the scene of offence. It is true in
Ex.P2 at column No.9 as well as column No.10, the time was kept blank and the same is now marked as Ex.D13. I did not procured any call data record includ- ing location of the mobile phones of any of the witnesses and the accused per- sons for verification of their movements. PWs 1 to 4 never handed over any medical records to me such as medical bills, medical reports and any discharge summary during my tenure as I.O. It is true PW1 did not state in her statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. that “she had received a call from a person introduced himself as a friend of her son and told her about the incident”, so also she did not state that she along with her daughter in law went to the Yashodha hospital and found her husband and son both are in unconscious state and admitted in :: PAGE NO. 70 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
ICU”. It is true the said facts are not even mentioned in Ex.P1 report of PW1. It is true PW2 did not state in his statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. that “the friends of PW4 came to the land namely Nagaraju, Venkata Narayana and two
Muslim friends on their two wheelers to the land”, so also PW2 did not state that his friends namely Venkateshwarlu and Bhikshamaiah also came there in respective two wheelers and similarly did not state A1 to A3 along with seven others came in two cars and some motorbikes to the land and they are in pos- session of the sticks”. PW2 also did not state in his statement that “A2 Rama
Krishna Reddy assaulted his son with stick over the legs and that A1 and A2 beat him with sticks on face, head, and through out the body”.
28a) PW.18 N.Shekar, the then Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Lallaguda is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet and he has deposed that in this case, he took up investigation from PW17 and he verified the CD file and by the time, major part of the investigation was completed and awaiting for the FSL report and during the course of his investigation, he received Ex.P15 FSL report dated 7.1.2012 of FSL vide file No.SCR/765/2012 through office of
Assistant Commissioner of Police furnished by LW21 K. Aruna Jyothi, the
Assistant Director and further he also collected the wound certificate of PW2 from LW14 Dr. P. Sanjay Divakar and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
:: PAGE NO. 71 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
28b) In the cross examination of PW.18, it is elicited that as hereunder that “I have opened Part-I case diary after my taking up of investigation. I do not have part-I CD with me and in the CD file in my hand, part-II CD is available. It is not true to suggest that I did not open Part-I CD at all in this case. I tried to record the statement of PW4, by calling his father/PW2 who has informed that he is not in a fit state of mind to give statement. It is true in Part-I CD I did not mention the said fact that I made efforts to record the statement of PW4 in my tenure. It is true in the charge sheet filed by me Dr. Sanjay Divakar cited as
LW14 shown as the doctor, who treated PW2. I have not addressed any requisition to the Yashodha hospital for collecting medical certificates of PW2.
The medical certificate was not furnished by LW14-Dr. Sanjay Divakar under any covering letter nor I have made any endorsement on the document about my collection. I cannot give the date on which I collected the said certificate of
PW2. I have not examined and recorded the statement of the doctor who have treated PW2 as per the certificate issued by LW14. It is true in the charge sheet filed by me I did not state that further investigation is pending or that a supplementary charge sheet was filed in due course. It is true in the charge sheet filed by me there is no mention about recording of statement of PW14 and LW5-Koteshwara Rao(LW14 in Supplementary charge sheet)”.
29a) To ascertain the material objects used in the commission of offence by accused, the Scientific Expert is examined as PW.19 A.Raja Naik, who is working as Assistant Director-TSFSL, Hyderabad and he deposed that he has :: PAGE NO. 72 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
been nominated by Director, TSFSL to depose evidence on behalf of LW21-Smt.
Aruna Jyothi, who is on medical leave due to knee surgery and the said LW21 is senior to him in TSFSL and that he is working as Assistant Director-TSFSL,
Hyderabad since 2019 in Serology Department presently. He further deposed that he can identify the signature of Smt. Aruna Jyothi, who issued Ex.P15 and apart from Ex.P15, LW21 also furnished another report dt.08.02.2012 vide file
No.SER 1462 of 2011, wherein she has examined a broken wooden stick with dark brown stains marked as item No.1, soil, etc., with dark brown stains as item No.2 and on examination, LW21 opined that human blood detected on item Nos. 1 and 2 but their blood groups could not be determined and the said report duly signed by Smt. Aruna Jyothi/LW21 and he identified Ex.P16 the signature of LW21 on the report dt.08.02.2012.
30a) The investigation officer who recorded the statement of one of the victim/ PW.4 subsequent to recovery from hospital is examined as PW.20
D.Kranthi Kumar, the then Sub Inspector of Police in P.S. Lallaguda and he has deposed that on 23.08.2016 PW2 has come to the police station and informed that his son Sharath Mudaliar has regained his consciousness and able to speak and that on the same day on 23.08.2016, on production of Sharath Mudaliar
before him by PW2 at police station, he recorded his statement under Sec.161
Cr.P.C. and also recorded the statements of PW7-S. Venkateshwarlu, PW8-
Bhikshamaiah, LW8-Bejjanki Naga Raju and LW9-Lingala Venkata Narayana who are produced before him by PW2. He further deposed that he submitted the :: PAGE NO. 73 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
statements of those witnesses recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. to the court along with a requisition on 24.08.2016 in Crl.M.P. No.1882 of 2016 under
Ex.P17 and then he filed a supplementary charge sheet to that effect.
30b) PW.20 was subjected to cross examination and it is elicited that “there is nothing mentioned in Ex.P17 about the instructions of the SHO/ In- spector of police in this case. Originally the charge sheet was filed in this case on 15.10.2013 and the preliminary cognizance was taken by the court on the same day that is on 15.10.2013, vide PRC No.50 of 2013”. It is further elicited that “It is true in the First Information Report lodged by PW1 under Ex.P1, there was no mention about the names of PW7-S. Venkateshwarlu, PW8-Bhikshama- iah, LW8-Bejjanki Naga Raju and LW9-Lingala Venkata Narayana as witnesses, as I mentioned in Ex.P17. I have not recorded the statements of PW2-Anand
Mudaliar on 23.08.2016”. It is elicited that “I did not verify the existence of the vehicle bearing No.AP 20 F 5005 in which PW.2 and PW.4 travelled to the scene of offence on the alleged date of incident”. It is further elicited from this wit- ness that “PW4 stated to me as in Ex.D3 (portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement).
PW7-S. Venkateswarlu stated to me as in Exs.D6 to D9 (portions of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement). PW8 sated to me as in Exs.D10 to D12 (portions of 161 Cr.P.C.
Statement). It is true as per the statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. of S.
Venkateshwarlu/PW7 and PW8-Bhikshamaiah are one and the same in verba- tim. It is true as per the statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. of LW8-Bejjanki Naga
Raju and LW9-Lingala Venkata Narayana are one and the same in verbatim :: PAGE NO. 74 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
During the course of arguments, learned Addl.P.P. representing on behalf of the state submitted his oral arguments at length inviting the attention of the court to the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the documentary evidence marked as Ex.P1 to P11 as well as the material objects marked as
MO1 to MO9. It is the main contention of the learned APP that, in the present case PW1 Aanda Lakshmi and PW3 Jeevana Sandhya, though not direct wit- nesses to the actual incident, their testimony is of circumstantial nature and they are the family members of the injured persons/ PW2 and PW4 and their evidence is natural evidence and cannot be thrown out on the ground that they are partisan witnesses and their evidence shall be taken into consideration with the witnesses PW2-Ananda Mudaliar and PW4-Sharath Mudaliar, the husband of
PW2. It is further contended by the learned Addl.P.P. that the testimonies of
PWs 1 to 4 established all the material particulars and their evidence in corrob- oration with the medical evidence adduced through PW11-Dr. Sai Sudarshan and PW16- Dr. Sai Narayana Rao and the medical certificates marked as Ex.P6 in respect of the injuries caused to PW2 and the medical certificates marked as
Ex.P7 in respect to the injuries caused to PW4 are sufficient to prove the com- plicity of the each accused to convict them under Sec.307 r/w.34 IPC. Learned
Additional P.P. also placed reliance of various decisions in support of his con-
tentions as hereunder:- :: PAGE NO. 75 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
1.Dr. Krishna Paul and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1996 SCC 733 in which it was held that the delay in recording the statements of witnesses under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. is not is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the same decision it was also held that the testimony of the injured witnesses is worthy reliable and worthy of credence.
2. Prabhu Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2009 SCC 745 wherein the
Honourable Supreme Court analysed the distinction between the dangerous
weapon and deadly weapon.
3. Munnalal Vs. State of U.P. decided on 24.01.2023 and in that decision, while interpreting Sec.134 of the Indian Evidence Act it was observed that in criminal trial, it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence to determine the guilty of the accused in criminal jurisprudence.
4. Kamal Sing Vs. State of U.P. decided on 09.05.2023 wherein the
Honourable High Court of Allahabad rendered that the occurrence of the
offence regarding the date, time, place and manner of the commission of the offence and participation of the accused persons can be proved with the evidence of injured witnesses.
5. Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SCC 2348, wherein it was held that defects in investigation not at all fatal to the case of prosecution.
Apart from the above decisions, on behalf of the prosecution, learned Addl. P.P. filed his written arguments contending that the charge framed against the accused herein is under Secs.147, 148, 307, 120-B :: PAGE NO. 76 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
r/w.149 IPC and though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, if the overall facts and circumstances of the case are taken into consideration that it can be inferred that A1 to A3 along with the other accused persons committed the offence of attempt to commit murder against PW2 and PW4 by forming into an unlawful assembly with possession of the deadly weapons like sticks and assaulted on the injured persons. In support of the arguments of the prosecution, in the written arguments incorporated the gist of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the medical evidence to show that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and further in support of the case of the prosecution, learned Addl.P.P. also incorporated the certain judgments/ case law rendered by the various appellate courts as follows:-
(a)In the Judgment in Amarsingh Vs Balvinder Sing 2003 (2) SCC 518.
(b) In another Judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
(c) In a case of State of M.P. Vs Krishnan and others (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1642).
(d) In Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra
(e) In a case Muniappan and others Vs State of Tamilnadu (AIR
2010 Supreme Court 3718, 2010 (9) SCC 567
(f) Ramesh Chand and etc., Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2002
(g) Purushotham Tripati and Purushotham Puriya Vs. State of Orissa, 1995.
By relying the above decisions learned APP has vehemently contended that to view from any angle the evidence on record more particularly the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the evidence of medical officers :: PAGE NO. 77 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
proves the case of prosecution beyond doubt and further the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 cannot be brushed aside for want of any corroboration or on the ground that there are inconsistent versions.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused while submitting arguments invited the attention of the court to the statement of accused No.1 filed at the time of examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and also he has filed certain documents for consideration of the court and the said statement of facts filed by the accused herein may also taken into consideration and those documents filed before the court are relevant for consideration of the defence of the accused persons and further the documents filed along with the written statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. may be taken into consideration to disbelieve the case of the prosecution more particularly the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the evidence of the investigation officers/PW17 and PW20. Learned counsel for the accused also filed the written arguments under Sec.314 of Cr.P.C. in support of the defence of the accused persons and the written arguments filed in detail consisting of 33 pages and also placed reliance of various judgments/ case laws mentioned as hereunder:-
i) Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh versus Mohammed Maqhbool Magrey & Ors at Para 29.
ii) Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the matter between State of UP versus Babu Ram reported in 2000 Cri LJ 2457 at Para 11.
iii) Judgment of the Honourable High Court for the State of A.P. made in Vedantham Satyavathi Vs P. Venkata Ratnam reported 1988 (1) ALT 915 at para 15.
:: PAGE NO. 78 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
iv) Judgment of the Honourable High Court for the State of A.P. at Hyderabad reported in 2002 CriLJ20021943 in the matter between Venakaramana Reddy Vs. State of A.P. at paras 38 & 39.
v) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court made in Kanakaranjan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 297 (SC) at paras 14 & 22.
vi) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court made in Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarath reported in 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 222 (SC) at paras 10 & 16.
vii) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court made in Peetambaran Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2023 (2) ALT (Crl.) 365 (AP) at para 18 & 20.
viii) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2022 (1) SCC (Crl.) at paras 17 & 18.
(33). It is pertinent to mention here that PW2 and PW4 are examined after about 10 months & 5 years of the alleged incident respectively. The reason for such hopelessly belated examination is that PWs 2 & 4 were not in a condition to give the statement and were undergoing treatment for the injuries received.
It is submitted that there is no record except the self- serving statements of
PWs 1 to 4. The said version is in-fact falsified by evidence of PWs 5 to 7. It is the categorical evidence of PWs 5 & 6 that within 7 or 8 days after the incident they met PWs 2 & 4 in their house at DD Colony whereas it is the categorical statement of PW7 that he met PW2 and PW.4 at Khammam after 1 year of the incident. Therefore, the said substantive evidence in absence of any medical evidence falsifies the explanation of the prosecution for not examining PWs.2 and 4 at least after their alleged discharge from the hospital on 29.10.2011 and 16.11.2011 respectively. This circumstance categorically discloses that PWs.2 :: PAGE NO. 79 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
and 4 met with road accident in November 2011 as admitted by PW.3 and taking advantage of the said road accident, in order to coerce A1 to give up his claim over the property the present false version is invented to implicate him and his family in the case. This belated examination of PWs.2 and 4 who are the alleged injured witnesses adversely affects the version of the prosecution.
(34). It is to be noted that contradictory statements are made by the witnesses about the stay of the family of PW2 in Hyderabad. It is the case of PW3 that they shifted to Hyderabad in the year 2004 whereas PW7 deposes that PW2's family shifted to Hyderabad in the year 2011. PW8 deposes that PW2 was a bullet mechanic residing in Pallegudem Village near Khammam and shifted to
Hyderabad 2 or 3 years prior to 2011. The clinching admission by PW2 himself that he has mentioned his residence as Khammam in various judicial proceedings including the Writ Petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court goes to the root of the prosecutions case vis- à-vis the present version.
(35). The version of PWs 2 & 4 about their visit to the scene of offence for performing Bhoomi Pooja, once again is highly unbelievable, in view of the categorical evidence on record about PW2 not being in possession of the property as could be seen from admissions of PWs 1 & 2 and documents submitted by A1 along with his Statement under Section 313 CrPC. Further PWs 1 & 3 not accompanying PWs 2 & 4 for performing Pooja is also out of tune with the probabilities factor. It is brought on record that for purpose of Bhoomi Pooja :: PAGE NO. 80 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
in addition to digging of the earth to take out the soil, perform Pooja with a picture/idol of any God/Goddess and breaking of coconut etc, is the ritual. It is the categorical case of PWs 1, 4 & 6 that the
Bhoomi Pooja was performed by breaking the coconuts etc. However, the perusal of Ex P2, the evidence of PW9 and PW17, goes to show that no such material indicating performance of Pooja was found at the scene of offence whichfalsifiestheentireversionoftheprosecution.
(36) It is the categorical case of PWs 1 to 4, 6, 7, Ex P1 and Ex P2 that PW2 & 4 travelled to the scene of offence in their Maruti Swift Vehicle bearing No AP 20
F 5005. The statutory information furnished by the Transport Department of
Government of Telangana under Right to Information Act discloses that the
Vehicle bearing registration No AP 20 F 5005 is a two-wheeler of Hero Honda make, previously owned by one P Kalyan Chowdhary and the present owner is one V Srinivas Rao. The information furnished and the extract of the Form 24 l.e., the registration Certificate of the said Vehicle enclosed to the information filed by Accused No 1 along with statement under Section 313 (5) of CrPC. This circumstance not only falsifies the version of prosecution but also affects the entire credibility of all the prosecution witnesses and the investigation.
(37)All the witnesses i.e., PWs 1 to 8 give different versions in relation to material aspects of the incident. It is the case of PW1 that on being informed by someone disclosing himself as friend of PW4 about the admission of PWs 2 :: PAGE NO. 81 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
& 4 in Yashoda Hospital, she rushed to Yashoda Hospital along with PW3 and after seeing the injured in the ICU, she went to PS Lallaguda and lodged Ex P1
Report which is also substantially the evidence of PW3. Admittedly PWs 5 to 8 and especially PWs 7 & 8 are known to PW1 being residents of Khammam and
PW1 not giving the names of PWs 5 to 8 either in Ex P1 or in her 161 statement as proved through the evidence of PW17 goes to the root of the evidence of
PWs. 5 to 8.
(38). PWS 1, 2 & 4 gave different versions about the visit to the scene of of- fence and the alleged assault etc in different cases which is brought on record in the cross examination of the said witnesses and also by placing the certified copies of their depositions/statements filed along with Statement of A1 under
Section 313 (5) of CrPC. PW1 under Ex D2 deposition gave a statement that she also accompanied to Site. PWs 2&4 in the proceedings of other cases stated that the incident took place on 21/11/2011 and that PWI also accompa- nied them to the scene of offence on the day of the incident and also that a purohit accompanied them to scene of offence. PWs 2 & 4 gave contradictory statements that it is only PWs 2 8 4 who went to perform Bhoomi Pooja and did not mention about the presence of PWs 3 or 5 to 8 (it is pertinent to mention here that mentioning of presence of PWs 5 to 8 in their deposition in this case is omission even in their previous statements in this case).
:: PAGE NO. 82 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
(39)The evidence of PWs 5 & 6 about their acquaintance with PW4 is con- tradictory and PWs 5 & 6 being invited to the Bhoomi Pooja by PW4 is highly unbelievable in the background of material elicited in the cross examination of the said witnesses to the effect that their deposition in the chief examination including both of them having acquaintance with each other and going to- gether to scene of offence is omission in their earlier statements. PW5 was not able to even give the name of owner of his house and shop and whereas PW6 admittedly is an active functionary of CPM Party to which PWs 1 & 2 also be- long to. PW1 or PW3 do not disclose their names or presence of PWs 5 to 8 ei- ther at Whitus Hospital or at Yashoda Hospital though these witnesses categor- ically deposed that they have informed PWs.1 & 3 about the incident and their presence at the Hospitals. In fact according to PW7 & 8, they shifted injured along with PW1.
(40) PWs 5 to 8 are setup witnesses introduced to lend some kind of cor- roboration to the self-serving evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the present version of
PWs 1 to 4 to introducing PWs 5 to 8 is total omission in their statement given to PW17 & PW20 which is proved through PW17 & PW20 and can be also seen in the contents of Ex P1.
(41). There is no material on record as to how PW17 identified PWs 5 & 6 as eye witnesses for their examination on 21/10/2011 & 27/10/2011 for admit- tedly none of these witnesses volunteered to give any report/statement or
PW17 claimed that he examined the said witnesses at the Hospital. In view of :: PAGE NO. 83 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
categorical deposition of PW1 that PWs 5 & 8 were not seen at the Hospital,
PW17 otherwise also cannot have examined them at Hospital. Admittedly statements of PWs 1, 3 & 14 recorded by PW17 even by 27/10/2011 do not dis- close the presence of PWs 5 & 6. PW17 in cross examination could not give any explanation as to how he identified PWs 5 & 6 and examined them.
(42) PWs 7 and 8 as already submitted are examined after more than 5 years on being produced by PW2 at the Police Station and there is no material on record about the presence of PWs 7 & 8 in the earlier statements of PWs 1 to 6 and in Ex P1 which is also admitted by PWs 17, 18 & 20. PW20 categorically ad- mits that names of PWs 7 & 8 are not mentioned in any record as mentioned by him in Ex P17. Therefore, the Identification and examination of PWs 7 & 8 after 5 years without there being any material by PW20 warrants exclusion of the evidence of PWs 7 & 8. PWs 7 & 8 claim that on being called by Police they went and did not meet PWs 2 & 4 on that day which is contrary to the version of PW20.
(43)None of the pachayatdars supported the case of the prosecution. The fabrication of the alleged documents is apparent on record for there is no ma- terial as to how PW17 identified and arrested AS to A7 for there is no material disclosing their identity as assailants by 30/10/2011. PW17 also admitted the same in the cross examination. However, the recovery of Vehicles is of no in- criminatory nature for there is no evidence about any registration numbers of the vehicles being used by the Accused at the time of the incident. Further :: PAGE NO. 84 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
there is no Investigation about the ownership and the use of vehicles allegedly seized. Therefore, the alleged apprehension of A5, A6 & subsequently of A7 and the recoveries are a crude fabrication. The recoveries under Ex P9 & P11 are said to be on 30/10/2011 but the same contains the signature of PW17 dt 31/10/2011.
(44) The alleged seizure of Tata Indigo Car parked at a public road in absence of any material about the ownership and use of the sald car is of no legal con- sequence to the case of the prosecution for there is contradictory version about the Vehicle Tata Indica & Tata Indigo. It is also further submitted that the alleged seizure of MO1 (stick) is of no consequence for PW2 identified MO1 as the stick with which A1 beat him but however, it is the case of PW17 that the stick with which A1 beat PW2 was thrown in Musi river which was not recov- ered. Therefore, the recovery of the said stick is of no consequence.
(45). The most crucial aspect in identification of any person is the availability of sufficient light to facilitate and to record the same to retain the Image for iden- tification and a later point of time. In the present case there is absolutely no material on record including the recitals of Ex P2 to indicate availability of light at the time of the incident. On the contrary the evidence on record categori- cally excludes availability of any light at the scene of offence for it is the evi- dence of PWS that Police Officials have examined the papers under the torch light of the mobile phone. Therefore. prosecution has to fall on this sole ground of identification of the assailants by PWs 2 & 4 to 8 being legally not accept- :: PAGE NO. 85 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
able. In this connection Accused relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court made in Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh vs State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (1)
ALD (Cr) 222 (SC) at paras 10 & 16
10. The occurrence was of 23.11.1997 at 09:00 PM in the agricultural field of complainant-Somabhal Rupabhai (PW-3), where it was dark. The panchanama of the scene of occurrence (Ex. P-73) shows no indication of the electric light either in the animal shed situated behind the house of complainant or that there is any electric pole anywhere in the vicinity or that there is a light on the well which is supplying water. Case of prosecution is that Appellant and six other co-accused surrounded the complainant party and there were three gun- shots fired. The injured witness (PW-6) in his cross-examination has admitted that he had not stated anything about the burning light either in the animal shed or anywhere in the vicinity. In the absence of any evidence as to the light aspect, the possibility of identifying the Accused in the darkness of the agricul- tural field of the complainant, particularly at 09:00 PM becomes doubtful. It is also to be pointed out that there is no evidence as to whether there was moon- light on 23.11.1997 and complainant has also not stated that he has identified the Appellant or other co-accused with the help of moonlight. In the absence of evidence as to the availability of sufficient light, the identification of the Ac- cused and the overt act attributed to the Appellant becomes doubtful.
16. There was darkness at the time and the place of occurrence making it diffi- cult for the witnesses to identify the assailants. The evidence of eye-witnesses are contradictory to each other as to the firing of the fatal blow. The guilt of the
Accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit has to be given to the Accused.
:: PAGE NO. 86 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
(46). It is further noted that that no witness from in and around the scene of offence is examined. It is submitted that collection of Call Data Records of PWs 1 to 8 and Accused would have clinched the issue of presence and movements of the accused and witnesses. Investigating Officer deliberately did not collect the call records which could have falsified the case of the prosecution. In this connection Accused relies on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter between Dayal Singh vs state of Uttaranchal reported in 2012 Cril) 4323 at para 16 with regard to Investigating officer being obliged to act according to police manual etc. which are extracted hereunder
16. The Investigating Officer, as well as the doctor who are dealing with the in- vestigation of a criminal case, are obliged to act in accordance with the police manual and the known canons of medical practice, respectively. They are both obliged to be diligent, truthful and fair in their approach and investigation. A default or breach of duty, intentionally or otherwise, can sometimes prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. An Investigating Officer is completely responsi- ble and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing his investigation. Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks volumes of a deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no court can afford to overlook it, whether it did or did not cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution. It is possible that despite such default/omission, the prosecution may still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the court can so return its finding. But, at the same time, the default and omission would have a reasonable chance of defeating the case of the prosecution in some events and the guilty could go scot-free. We may illustrate such kind of investi- gation with an example where a huge recovery of oplum or poppy husk is made from a vehicle and the Investigating Officer does not even investigate or make an attempt to find out as to who is the registered owner of the vehicle and whether such owner was involved in the commission of the crime or not. Instead, he merely apprehends a cleaner and projects him as the principal of- fender without even reference to the registered owner. Apparently, it would prima facie be difficult to believe that a cleaner of a truck would have the ca- pacity to buy and be the owner, in possession of such a huge quantity, Le., hundreds of bags, of poppy husk. The investigation projects the poor cleaner as the principal offender in the case without even reference to the registered owner.
:: PAGE NO. 87 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
(47) Upon hearing the rival contentions of both sides and also looking into the written arguments submitted by both prosecution as well as the defence,
before going to appreciate the facts in issue and relevant facts, it is relevant to
mention herein that at the time of examination of the accused persons under
Sec.313 Cr.P.C. A1 herein has filed written statement of facts and in which he stated and referred various proceedings before the court of law in respect of
Writ Petition No.1406 of 2010 and also the orders passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in WP.Nos.21701 and 27699 of 2010 as well as the Judgment in Criminal case in CC.Nos.188 of 2015 and 269 of 2015 as well as the land grabbing case pending before the court in respect of Bathukammakunta land vide LGC
No.266 of 1995 and also the criminal cases in which PW.2 Anand Mudaliar and his son, Sharath Mudaliar/PW.4 after giving evidence in various criminal cases in CC.Nos.646/2016, 72/2019, 74/2019, 124/2014 and also the statements given to the police in those cases under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. in support of his con- tention. It is also the statement given by A1 under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. that the so- called Maruthi Swift car purportedly used by Pws.2 and 4 is bearing registration
No.AP 20F 5005, but as per the RTA verification the said vehicle bearing regis- tration No.AP 20 F 5005 is not Swift Maruthi car but it is a Hero Honda Splen- dour registration number. For the learned defence counsel placed reliance of the documents and in support of that contention he also filed particulars ob- tained from RTA department under RTI Act which clearly shows that the vehicle bearing No.AP 20 F 5005 is a two wheeler Hero Honda Splendour registered in the name of one Kalyan Chowdary of Khammam district. Therefore, the word :: PAGE NO. 88 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
used by Pws.2 and 4 to go to Bathukammakunta land is creating a shadow of doubt as per the contentions of the learned defence counsel.
(48) Looking into overall evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced by both parties and also taking into consideration the essential in- gredients of the offences under Secs.147, 148, 120(B) r/w.149 IPC whether the prosecution is able to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt is to be looked into from the testimonies of witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution. Therefore, on careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, this court find as follows:
A) In the present case, PW.1 Ananda Lakshmi and PW.3 Jeevan Sandhya are not direct witnesses to the actual incident and their evidence is the circumstantial nature and it is the case of the prosecution, their evidence can be looked into with due care and caution as they are natural witnesses and they are wives of
PW.2 and PW.4 and their evidence is to be considered as a part of transaction of the present case in in hand and their evidence can be taken into considera- tion as corroborative piece of evidence. But from the statements of Pws.1 and 2, there are several contradictions and they are claiming to have received the information through a person over the phone but they does not know the name of that person and according to them the person who gave information is the friend of PW.4 Sharath Mudarliar and whereas Pws.2 and 4 the injured persons categorically stated that A1 and A2 assaulted on them with the sticks and they :: PAGE NO. 89 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
have nothing stated against other accused persons. Further-more, in the present case, Pws.2 and 4 have not stated the names of any other persons other than A1 and A2 and they have nothing stated against A3 to A8. Since the case of the prosecution abated as A3 M.Chandrasekhar Reddy and A6 Gundala
Neepal Reddy and A7 Veligireddy Neeraj Nayan @ Neeraj Reddy, the remaining accused persons/ A4, A5 and A8 concerned, Pws.1 to 4 have nothing stated about their complicity.
B) Whereas PW.4 stated in his cross examination that he sustained severe injuries because of the assault of the accused persons/ A1 and A2 and he be- came unconscious then and there and he regained consciousness in the hospi- tal and in support of the injuries caused to Pws.2 and 4, the prosecution placed reliance of the injury certificates under Exs.P6 in respect of PW.2 and Ex.P7 in respect of PW.4 and the doctors who issued those certificates are not exam- ined and instead of medical officers cited as witnesses, the prosecution has ex- amined substitute doctors i.e. PW.11 Dr.P.Sai Sudershan who issued Ex.P3 with the nomenclature “TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN” dated 17.5.2023 and whereas PW.16 Dr.Sai Narayana Rao, who issued the wound certificate is not the same doctor who treated the injured PW.4.
C) Whereas the so-called eye witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecu- tion as PW.5 Mohd Osman, PW.6 Syed Zaheeruddin, PW.7 Venkateshwarlu and
PW.8 Bhikshamaiah are said to be present at the time of alleged incident but they did not interfered to rescue Pws.2 and 4 which seems to be unnatural and when they came to Bhoomi Pooja and if any such incident took place at the time of incident, they ought to have given information either to the police or them should made an attempt to rescue Pws.2 and 4 from the assault of as- sailants. But both Pws.5 and 6 stated in their evidence that they know PW.4 :: PAGE NO. 90 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
and on his request, they went there to attend Bhoomi Puja and similarly Pws.7 and 8 were invited by PW.2 to attend the Bhoomi Pooja on that day and they came all the way from Khammam to attend function at Sun city and then they started at about 4.30 a.m. from Sun city and reached Tarnaka at about 5.45 a.m. and by the time Pws.2 and 4 present. It is understandable when the
Bhoomi Pooja programme was proposed by Pws.2 and 4, no Purohit was present and no breaking of coconut was taken place and nothing was seized by the police under the cover of panchanama. Further-more, the evidence of eye witnesses/ Pws.5 to 8 is contradicting with each other and their testimonies are not in corroboration with one to another in all material particulars and there are several contradictions elicited from their evidence by the learned defence counsel in the cross examination.
D) Next considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused, the evidence of PW.12 Jude and PW.13 Joseph Rajan, who said to have been acted as mediators for the confessional statements of A1 to A3 have not sup- ported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. Similarly the con- fession of A5 to a7 is also not proved from the testimonies of PW.15 Syed
Yakub, PW.10 Md.Saleem and their evidence is not worthy reliable to prove the confession of A5 to A7 and that the seizure of two wheelers/ motor bikes from their possession. Further-more, the contents of panchanama of Ex.P9 and the contents of Ex.p2 crime details form also creates a shadow of doubt in the case of prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed out that the crime details form under Ex.P2 is not containing any specific date and time of conducting the panchanama proceedings. But in the evidence on record, the scene of offence allegedly shown by PW.1 as Ananda Lakshmi, but she denied that she did not visit the land at Bathukammakunta on that day and as such, the evidence of mediator is not worthy reliable.
:: PAGE NO. 91 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
E) As already stated above, the confessional statements of the accused per- sons not proved the mediators except identifying the signatures, they have not stated anything incriminating against the accused herein. Consequently, the seizure report under Ex.P10 and seizure report under Ex.P11 is of no conse- quence for recovery or seizure of case property deposited in PI.No.109 of 2013,
PI.No.65 of 2013 and those objectsd marked as Mos.1 to 9.
F) In fact, the seizure of Mos.1 and 2 sticks and seizure of clothes marked as
Mos.3 to 8 is also creates a shadow of doubt in the case of prosecution and it is to be noted that in the first charge sheet, there is nothing mentioned about the seizure of the material objects and subsequent in supplementary charge sheet by citing some more witnesses, the material objects were brought on record and from the evidence of investigation officer/ PW.16, there is a serious lacu- naes and latches on the part of the investigation and the inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW.4 is also not convincing to come to conclusion that the testimony of PW.4 is worthy reliable. He stated that he was not in a position to give evidence for about 5 years from the date of incident, but the learned counsel for the accused elicited from him that after 2012 and before 2016, PW.4 has given evidence in various criminal cases as elicited from the testimonies of PW.2 as well as PW.4.
G) From the above observation and findings, I have also taken into consider- ation the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the accused wherein it is specifically contended that the contradictory versions of Pws.2, 4, 5 to 8 about the alleged incident of assault and it is pointed that para 22, 23, 24, 28, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 64, 65, 70 and 74 of written arguments filed by counsel for the accused herein:
49) Therefore, considering the above contentions and case laws relied on by the counsel for the accused, the contentions of the prosecution is not tenable in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused with :: PAGE NO. 92 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
reference to the evidence on record. From the entire evidence on record, it is very clear that there is no evidence on record that any doctor by name, Sanjay
Divakar was exists as on the date of admission of Pws.2 and 4 in Yashoda hos- pital and as such, the documents relied as Exs.P6 and P7 through PW.1 is not sufficient to prove the nature of injuries caused to Pws.2 to 4. Though the wit- nesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are strangers to the assailants, the investigating agency has not taken any steps to conduct test identification parade with the witnesses as against the suspects / accused herein. Further- more, as admitted by Pws.17, 18 and 20, no case diaries were prepared by them for the day to day investigation as pointed out by the learned counsel.
The entire investigation into the case is creates a shadow of doubt and there is no material to show that the investigation officers authorised to take up further investigation and filing of the supplementary charge sheet after taking cog- nizance of the offence. Therefore, the prosecution agency deliberately pre- pared the statements of Pws.2 and 4 to suit the case and to implicate the ac- cused persons at the instance of Pws.2 and 4. Indeed, there is no supporting circumstances or contemporaneous record for the collection of medical certifi- cates under Exs.P3, 6 and 7 by the investigation officer and there is no requisi- tion addressed by the investigation officer and there is no letter addressed by the hospitals to the investigating agency and as such, the medical evidence adduced by prosecution is contrary to the occular evidence of Pws.2 and 4.
Therefore, the case of the prosecution in all material particulars containing substantial doubts as to the actual incident dated 21.10.2011 and the complic- :: PAGE NO. 93 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
ity of each accused is not established to get attract the unlawful assembly un- der Secs.147, 148 and 149 IPC and absolutely there is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 in association with A3 to A8 have committed criminal conspir- acy for the purpose of committing murder of Pws.2 and 4. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and as such, looking into the entire evidence by following the decisions relied on by the counsel for the accused in 2000 Crl.L.J. 2456 cited supra and also decision reported in 1988(1) ALT 915 and the decision reported in 2023 (2) ALT Crl.365 wherein and whereunder at paras 19 and 20 Peetambaram vs. State of Kerala held as hereunder:
“19. The Chief Police Officer of a district is the Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian Police Service. Needless to state, an or- der from the District Police Chief is not the same as 8 (2001) 7 SCC 536 an order issued by the concerned Magistrate. Referring to Vinay Tyagi (supra), this Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.9 noted that there is no specific requirement to seek leave of the court for further investigation or to file a supplementary report but in- vestigation agencies, have not only understood it to be so but have also adopted the same as a legal requirement. The doctrine of contem- poranea exposito aids such an interpretation of matters which have been long understood and implemented in a particular manner to be accepted into the interpretive process. In other words, the requirement of permission for further investigation or to file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore required to be complied with.
20. In the facts at hand, it is clear that such a permission was never taken, granted or ordered. Consequently, FRII is without basis. In FRI it has been stated that in the absence of any documents in respect of the financial transactions, the instant case may be treated as a false case. This, then would necessarily imply that after due investigation conducted by a duly authorized person, the conclusion is that the ingredients of the section mentioned in the FIR have not been met and no case is made out” :: PAGE NO. 94 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
50) Hence the for the above reasons and findings recorded, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused herein beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently the accused herein are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt for the charges framed un- der Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPC and consequently, the accused herein are entitled to be acquitted.
51) In the result, A1, A2, A4, A5 and A8 found not guilty for the offences un- der Secs.147, 148, 307 r/w.149 and 120(B) IPC and they are acquitted under
Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Mos. 1 to 8 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of March 2024.
SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –
VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
SECUNDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: PW1:Smt. P. Ananda Lakshmi PW2:P. Anand Mudaliar PW3:Jeevana Sandhya PW4:Sharath Mudaliar PW5:Mohd. Osman :: PAGE NO. 95 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
PW6:Syed Zaheeruddhin PW7:S. Venkateshwarlu PW8:U. Bhikshamaiah PW9 : M. Mahender PW10 : Mohd. Saleem PW11 : Dr. P. Sai Sudarshan PW12 : Jude PW13 : Joseph Rajan PW14 : NVV Sathyanarayana PW15 : Syed Yakob PW16 : Dr. T. Sai Narayana Rao PW17 : N. Rama Krishna Goud PW18 : N. Shekar PW19 : A. Raja Naik PW20 : D. Kranthi Kumar.
For Defence: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution : ExP1 :Report ExP2 :Crime Detail Form Ex.P3:The document issued by PW11 under Head of to “whom so it may concern”, dt.17.05.2013 Ex.P4:Signature of PW12 on Confessional statement and two seizure reports. Ex.P5:Signature of PW12 on Confessional statement and two seizure reports Ex.P6: Injury certificates dt.18.11.2011 of PW2. Ex.P7: Injury certificates dt.18.11.2011 of PW4. Ex.P8: FIR in Cr.No.137/2011 Ex.P9:Panchanama, dt.30.10.2011 Ex.P10:Seizure report, dt.30.10.2011 Ex.P11:Portion of seizure report, dt.30.10.2011 Ex.P12:Confessional panchanama of Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.AP29AL2877 Ex.P13:Seizure report of Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.AP29AL2877 Ex.P14:Seizure report of MOs 3 to 8.
Ex.P:15:FSL Report through Office of ACP furnished by LW21 K. Aruna Jyothi, Assistant Director of FSL, dt.07.12.2012 :: PAGE NO. 96 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Ex.P16:Report, dt.08.02.2012. Ex.P17:Requisition available on record as Crl.M.P. No.1882 of 2016.
For Defence:
Ex.D1:Signature of PW1 on Affidavit filed in WP.No.15938 of 2012 along with the order of the Hon’ble High Court, dt.26.12.2015.
Ex.D2:Copy of deposition of PW3/P. Ananda Lakshmi in C.C.74 of 2014,dt.25.06.2015.
Ex.D3:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4, dt.23.08.2016.
Ex.D4:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4, dt.23.08.2016. (Two Zipsy Vehicles were removed by Pws2 and PW4 themselves).
Ex.D5:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6. (Car Indigo to the land at Tarnaka (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Stmt).
Ex.D6:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7. Occupation is business (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Stmt).
Ex.D7:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7. H.No.1-6-137/A, Jublieepura, Khammam (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Stmt)
Ex.D8:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7. (Bhikshamaiah accompanied with Anand Mudaliar and his family member (Portion 161Cr.P.C Stmt)
Ex.D9:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW7. (Injured Anand Mudaliar and his son were shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C stmt).
Ex.D10:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8 (Ward No.137 and Block No. of Bathukammakunta (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C stmt). Ex.D11:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8 (Along with PW7 accompanied with Ananda Mudaliar and His family member (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C stmt).
:: PAGE NO. 97 OF 97::
SC.436/2016
Ex.D12:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW8 (Injured Anand Mudaliar and his son were shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment (Portion of 161 Cr.P.C stmt).
Ex.D13:Column No.9 and column No.10 of Ex.P2
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
MO1:Stick in PI no.109/2013 of Item No.5 MO2:Wooden stick in PI no.200/2013 of item No.1 MO3:white colour shirt in PI no.65/2023 MO4:white colour pant with leather belt in PI no.65/2023 MO5:White colour banian half sleeved in PI no.65/2023 MO6:Blue colour jean pant with belt MO7:White and red colour check designed shirt MO9:Blood stained earth
Spl Judge For The Trial Of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-Cum – VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions, Secunderabad